Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Welcome to the incident noticeboard
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Centralized discussion There is currently a request for adminship open for discussion. Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions? Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on "In the news" be changed? How safe are GMOs? (Note: Active ArbCom remedies) April Fools' Day on Wikipedia Former names in lead of bios of transgender/non-binary people Repeal WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES? Allow non-admins to close RfDs to "delete"? IP block exemptions to users in good standing? Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages

Noticeboard archives

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles

User:Spacecowboy420 has taken on board that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and should not be the first option. I don't believe there is any consensus for admin action at this point, but further ill-considered blanking, edit warring over blanking, or incivil edit summaries might warrant another discussion. Please avoid using insults and derogatory terms in edit summaries, even when not directly aimed at another editor. I suggest re-reading WP:CIVIL carefully, including "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". Fences&Windows 17:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been going around blanking articles. And not just huge chunks of articles...but entire articles. This is against the WP:Preserve policy and other rules that are in place for dealing with unsourced material. Furthermore, we do not blank entire articles unless it's a serious WP:BLP or WP:Copyvio issue. If the article really needs deleting, we take the matter to WP:AfD; we do not simply blank the article and then go about our merrily way. I first warned Spacecowboy420 about inappropriate removals when he removed easily verifiable content from Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) solely because it was unsourced and incorrectly cited the material as possible WP:Original research. He did not do a check to see if the material was original research; he simply removed it based on a guess. This sparked a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden), and the most current discussion going on there. It also led to the current debating going on at Wikipedia talk: Editing policy. While some might be able to excuse his behavior in the Child grooming case, I do not see how this, this and this type of blanking is acceptable. Neither did Piotrus and Materialscientist, who reverted him at two of the articles. And in this case, he failed to do his WP:Before job before proposing that the article be deleted. As seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day in that case. As seen with this edit, Spacecowboy420 is also mistaken about WP:Primary sources, assuming that they are inherently bad.

I took the matter to S Marshall's talk page since he was as alarmed as I was about Spacecowboy420's behavior in the Child grooming case and his nonchalant, dimissive attitude regarding removing material. While S Marshall declined to get involved on his talk page, Piotrus stated, "I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use." Spacecowboy420's response was, "I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again." He soon made edits like this and this.

Some intervention is needed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this, this, this, and maybe particularly this are some of the edits being questioned here? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, that's part of it. When it comes to blanking the entire article, or essentially the entire article, this, this and this is also a part of it. Spacecowboy420 has been clear that he believes this type of blanking is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how anyone can believe that blanking of an entire article put together by others is "fine". Opening deletion discussion, maybe, but not blanking an entire article. If his beliefs do permit that, then it is definitely time for him to be advised to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. Surely the way to go about dealing with completely unsourced articles with no notability is to stub them down to the basics, and then PROD them. Stuff like this is basically vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Laura Jamieson, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were "completely unsourced articles with no notability"; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect this type of edit to stop until Spacecowboy420 comes here and engages in discussion. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I got tagged to this conversation, and will weigh in that I don't think the content being removed from Cebu Pacific falls so obviously short of sourcing requirements as to justify these removals. Specifically, while I share much of his objections to the use of primary sources, material sourced to primary sources is sufficiently acceptable as to require discussion. For Dasmariñas Village, though, the problem is more that he doesn't delete cleanly: replacing it with a redirect to Makati City would have been quite justifiable. Leaving the article as it was, after being tagged as unsourced for seven years, would have been completely irresponsible. It's an example of exactly how useless the "citation needed" tags are.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at least some of the material removed from the Cebu Pacific article, particularly including its having merged with other airlines, probably merits inclusion, and, I assume, could probably have sources found if in fact the editor who removed it were more interested in improving the article than in, basically, unilaterally removing everything with sometimes questionably phrased edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the behavior of Spacecowboy420 as very concerning. This editor does not understand sourcing guidelines or policy at all. We all know that material needs to be "challenged" and may be removed, but the mere existence of a refimprove or noref tag is not, per se, a challenge of contentious material. Absent a BLP violation or blatent copyvio, the standard procedure is to initiate discussion. My take:

1. WP:PRIMARY is widely misunderstood; it does not prohibit use of primary sources, it simply explains where they are and are not appropriate. In the case of the Cebu Pacific article, it was filled with a lot of cruft, but some of the material removed was fine, and taking out something apt to be verified simply due to a cn tag is a lack of due diligence.
2. this was just inappropriate content removal without discussion.
3. this was a completely inappropriate edit summary
4. this had no justification for blanking. and properly reverted. Unsourced, yes, but blanking was overkill$.
5. prodding and deleting content of an article in this fashion was completely inappropriate.
6. this was at least in response to a discussion, so OK in style, I make no coment as to the validity of the content or arguments advanced.
7. completely inappropriate edit summary. Also inappropriate blanking.

• That's all for now from me. I'd say a restriction may be in order that in the future Spacecowboy420 cannot blank or prod tag any article, if he has issues, he can either file a proper AfD, or if there is a prod concern, ask someone else to do it for him. Spacecowboy420 should be required to make blanking requests via either the BLP noticeboard or Copyvio noticeboards. If he chooses not to respond here, I'd suggest a one-week block might get his attention. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a prod restriction, but I do support a restriction on blanking articles, per mine and other arguments above and elsewhere. Ha, I'll even ping User:Kvng with whom I am having a disagreement on some prods - see, there are people who go far, far further then me... Perhaps instead of deprodding my prods you could see if there are improperly blanked Spacecowboy's articles out there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take aboard the constructive criticism and advice given here and accept that when I removed unsourced content on some articles, it might have been a good idea to consider 1. checking that I didn't remove valid content. 2. contacting the editors who inserted the content in the first place and asking them to provide sources. 3. redirects instead of virtually empty topics. If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This might just have been a case of an editor with a previous negative interaction with me, getting a little too overzealous with ANI reports. I'd rather say "yeah, ok, I'll be careful" than get involved in another prolonged dramafest, over a really simple issue. C'est la vie. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, as made clear before and then again, we both know that I've had many previous negative interactions with you, not just the Child grooming case. But, as is clear by others expressing the same concerns about your editing, that is not why I reported you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, like you I love lyric poetry more than drama, but this was not a dramafest over a simple issue. I mean, it was a simple issue, but repeated frequently and zealously. Few people like trimming articles more than I do, but wholesale blanking is quite another, and as such this is a matter for ANI. Had you not responded, and continued with the simple issue, there is little doubt you would have been blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies My reaction was probably more to do with the source of the complaint, than the content. Rather than insult the source of the complaint, or comment on their motivation, it would be more constructive of me to pay attention to you, as you've always spoken total sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, if I could get that last bit in an affidavit, I'd be mighty grateful. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: I find it curious that you "banned" Flyer22 Reborn and Montanabw from your talk page over this. Are you trying to make it harder for them to resolve issues with you in the future? Rebbing 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rebb - No, I'm trying to get a little peace and quiet in my editing life. A quick "ping" gets my attention to any post, if required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In that case, I must comment that Spacecowboy420 needs to be explicitly warned that blanking material simply for being uncited or for having an old {{cn}} tag is an improper response per WP:PRESERVE. If an article is overly promotional or COI in tone, appropriate tags should be placed and the editors in question be properly informed. Most of all, it is completely inappropriate to use language in edit summaries such as these (all in his last 500 edits) no matter what the provocation—or even accuracy of the sentiment:

1. "buying planes and having routes is not fucking notable"
2. "shit article. POV/OR/NO sources."
3. "Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off." (in response to a warning, no less)
4. "fuck this article sucks...."
5. "not a collection of fucking pictures"
6. "This article sucks. ..."
7. "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?"
8. "promotional crap..."
9. "Promotional crap."
10. "more crap removed"
11. "lots of crap removed, for numerous awesome reasons..."

• Spacecowboy420 appears to be an erudite individual and perfectly capable of using a thesaurus to find synonyms for these assorted four-letter expletives. (I did not note uses where the individual used said words to describe his own actions, which is acceptable as it is either self-deprecating humor or commentary on one's own actions) My suggestion is that any further behavior such as these examples above result in an immediate 24-48 hour block for each occurrence. Inappropriate blanking or inappropriate prod-tagging may need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but Spacecowboy420 needs to be strongly admonished that this is not appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's not spend time on trying to figure out what kind of individual Spacecowboy420 is and focus on addressing the behavior. I think the whole matter of blanking material has been settled, and I expect not to see it come up again. Spacecowboy420, the swearing in edit summaries is needlessly provocative and adds no value to the work you are doing, so please drop it. This summary is not an acceptable way to talk to other editors. There are other ways to explain the removal of material you think is problematic. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The thing is that a literal reading of WP:BURDEN does support Spacecowboy420's behaviour. As written, editors can remove content if they don't like the sourcing, and there aren't any limits or qualifiers on that power. WP:PRESERVE suggests otherwise but we have a number of editors who are seriously arguing that BURDEN trumps PRESERVE. It's not proportionate or reasonable to warn editors for doing what our policies specifically say they can do. In my view the correct response to this isn't to impose sanctions on Spacecowboy420. It's to clarify WP:BURDEN by explaining how far it goes.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Another option might be to either place the removed material on the article talk page, allowing people to still have access to it for the purposes of finding sources for what it says, or alternately adding a wikilink of the edit history of the article showing the material removed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Wikipedia requires that I notify you of a WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank S Marshall for presenting the devil's advocate position, above, since he's firmly in the opposite camp; it was a very classy thing to do. I'm one of the people who are arguing, as he says, "BURDEN trumps PRESERVE". However, even those of us who believe that make a couple of possible exceptions to the removal rights given by BURDEN. First, most of us concede that it is likely a sanctionable practice to make a regular or habitual practice of removing material merely because it is unsourced without making a good faith effort to find a source for the material, especially if it appears that doing so is pursuant to a topical agenda or POV (it being somewhat unclear whether or not it is sanctionable without that factor being present; most cases which have come here to ANI without it that I've seen or been involved in — which may be simply luck of the draw — have ended with considerable criticism of the practice, but no sanctions). Second, and much less certain, is the idea that even a single removal of a large amount — blanking — of material from a single article may be sanctionable. (And, of course, even if neither of those exceptions is present, edit warring over a removal is not permitted.) I have not looked and do not know whether Spacecowboy420 has engaged in either of those practices, but I do find the edit comments quoted by the good Montanabw, above, to be disturbing, especially if it is combined with one of those practices, and I wanted to add this additional information for what it's worth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What's interesting here is that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN redirect to policies, and both state pretty clearly that editors should "consider" fixing problems rather than just blanking things. Use of the {{cn}} tag is encouraged. My own position is that tagging is superior to blanking, as it gives the article editors an opportunity to fix problems. At the very least, going around and declaring that articles "suck" or are "shit" is WP:BITEY at its worst, highly incivil and does not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. It's one thing to become irate at a well-established editor or a true vandal, but where we have these low-quality-but-good-faith articles, it is more appropriate to use tags or at least a more educational edit summary. The idea of moving large swaths of blanked material to the talk page is also a good one. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the totality of the editors blanking career, but just looking at his edits to Child grooming in particular, since that's part of my long-term area of watching. Edits such as this and this... twice removing the blue-sky statement Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being... is an action that makes me quite nervous about that editor. I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it would be consistent with a highly problematic editor. It's a red flag to me. However, based on the above, it seems highly likely that this editor just likes to delete material generally for some unclear reason, and happened to pick that passage more or less at random. I guess. It's still not something I like to see. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"...just likes to delete unsourced material" would have expressed the apparent situation as it stands rather more precisely, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• That paragraph was unsourced but extremely easy to source. When I got tagged on the talk page I was able to find a source within minutes of seeing it. For the reasons Herostratus gives, it's the single most problematic one of Spacecowboy420's recent edits and it spawned a colossal discussion on WT:V and WT:EP. WP:BURDEN does allow editors to remove paragraphs in this way, and in my view the problem is with the policy rather than with the editor ---- barring a little salty language in the edit summaries. (The edit summary part of this AN/I is clearly going nowhere except for a mild warning. This is a first offence and we don't need long AN/I discussions to deal with a little bad language. The difficult part of this AN/I is about policy.)—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I do offline things at the weekend, so I wasn't aware of the drama unfolding here, until I got back online.

Seeing the amount of time people have put into discusing things here, I guess it would be polite of me to comment on a few points.

1. Burden vs Preserve. I've had this discussion with some of the editors here, in the past, on other discussion pages, and I still stand by my comments that WP:BURDEN does allow us to remove content that is lacking a source. To me this is so important, because it encourages editors to add sources, rather than just add content and rely on other editors to find the sources. If it becomes standard that editors are reported for removing unsourced content, then we might as well remove the need for sources on anything other than BLP related content. The editor that adds content should provide a source. The editor that restores unsourced content should provide a source. The editor removing the content, may choose to be kind and provide a source, but that's their option, removing the content should be just as valid an option.

2. I was willing to accept some of the valid points made that criticized me, because it helps to be open minded, and I just want to get on with editing articles. I could have spend days debating burden VS preserve, but to be honest, I wasted enough time the last time it was discussed and we got nowhere, so I chose the easy option and stated that I would look at other options, that certainly does not mean that I accept unsourced content should not be removed. Removal is one valid option, my error was that I didn't consider the other options enough.

3. I used profanity in my edit summaries. I have major issues with this complaint for a number of reasons...

Firstly, I was being reporting for removal of content/blanking - an editor who I have had previous issues with, Montanabw, decided to get involved, hoping (or to be more accurate, requesting) that I should receive a block and/or be subject to editing restrictions. When I decided to be tactful and open minded about the criticism, accepting that I could have performed my edits in a number of different ways, rather than jumping into a big fight in ANI, it seemed as if this would all be resolved without any sanctions against me. So, seeing this situation not resulting in sanctions, Montana decided she had better find something else to complain about, in an attempt to get my account blocked for something...anything... This is not what ANI is about, this is just vindictive. ANI is not here to gain revenge on editors that you have had an edit related conflict with. Actually, this is not what Wikipedia is for, not just ANI>

Secondly, I swear. I swear in real life. I am aware of civility rules in Wikipedia, and specifically in regards to edit summaries. I would never use profanity or anything else offensive to attack an editor. Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. Using words like nigger, fag or whore are offensive towards a group of people, without the need to actually direct them at anyone - I have never used that sort of language in my edit summaries, or on wikipedia (AFAIK). I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend. The same as someone might be offended with my views on homosexuality, race, religion, etc - my use of profanity is something that I guess people should learn to either accept or ignore, because we can't all have the same moral feelings on everything.

Finally, when I initially saw the report about my profanity, I actually stopped and thought for a moment. Maybe Montana actually had a point? Maybe, if I ignore the fact that we had a dispute in the past, perhaps she has different standards to me, and is genuinely offended by my profanity in my edit summaries?

Then I saw the following in her edit summaries:

crap

crap

shit

unsourced bullshit, stop adding it back in.

I would suggest that editors can draw their own conclusions about the whole situation. A complaint was made against me, for using profanity in edit summaries, by an editor who has used very similar profanity in their edit summaries. (note: the above are all from May 1st 2016 onwards) - the only difference is that I am not requesting an editing block, a threat of a block, or other sanctions against that editor, I just want them to stop bugging me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, perfect examples, the first two were my own comments about my own edits to an article I started, made while it was still sandboxed (while it was, frankly, still crap quality and not yet in mainspace)...I excluded similar of your edits where you swore at yourself, as we can all criticize ourselves… The third example was after multiple times a now-blocked vandal had added disruptive content. The fourth was something I should not have said, even though the same unsourced and inaccurate content was being edit-warred in over and over. If you cannot see the difference between those examples and your drive-by comments to, basically, "first offenders", then this is part of the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below about his profanity and civility issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Stuff like this or this is IMHO openly disruptive. Cleaning up articles is one things, leaving the articles destroyed and without any meaningful content, not even caring about generating code errors and leaving random sentences with no context in the actual articles, is just WP:DISRUPTPOINT and goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. Let alone that bold removal of primary sourced contents just because they are primary sourced contents underlines serious competence issues. Also, apparent refusal of collaboration and aggressive edit summaries are also a problem, as well as signs of batteground behaviour (eg. see point 3 in the message above).Frankly, I think he is blockable, I don't see here a serious editor who cares of the encyclopedia. He says in the response above he'll change his attitude, but the response itself does not show he understood he was wrong and that there is a difference between "removing unsourced content" and leaving blanked or semi-blanked articles with nonsense contents. For the record, I have had zero interaction with this editor nor I have apparently ever edited any article he "cleaned up" [2]. Cavarrone 08:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that calling something a "shit article" has exactly the same meaning as calling it a "poor article" - it's just a choice of words that some people have decided to have a little drama over. (while using the same language themselves)

In regards to removing content, as I have already stated "...If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it." - I don't see what the problem is. Wikipedia:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE seems highly relevant, for an editor who has 1. agreed to look at better ways to deal with an issue. 2. made no further edits that have the issues that were pointed out in the report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comments like "that some people have decided to have a little drama over" show further lack of understanding regarding what is a helpful attitude for a collaborative community. No one cares what Spacecowboy42 does in real life, but editing Wikipedia requires competence and collaboration. There is no problem with the occasional expletive, but anyone who is generally unable to avoid profane edit summaries probably does not have the right temperament for Wikipedia. I encountered Spacecowboy42 here and that experience confirms this report. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Noting the irony that Johnuniq's example shows Spacecowboy420 actually opposing the removal of material... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you're basing your comments here on a pre-existing bias you had against me. If you're you're going to complain just because I said "fuck" then you and I have different opinions about what is acceptable re. civility guidelines. Personally, I'd rather focus on content, than care about who used profanity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to focus on content and not care about the use of profanity then go ahead, just remember not to use profanity yourself. That way you can ignore it when others use it. Personally I try to think of edit summaries as direct and public communication with the people whose words I'm changing. Some of my edit summaries can be terse, especially "not curly" for people who have spelled public without the l, and "secularisation in action" for sportsfans who believe their team would play better if there was a hay filled cradle on the touchline instead of a shouty sweary guy disrupting the flow of instructions from the fans to the players. So apologies if I have a mote in my eye. But I'd like all involved to think through how their edit summaries might appear to the person they are talking to. To me describing someone's work as shit or crap is unhelpfully unspecific and rather more serious than calling it poor. Poor quality work is goodfaith but error laden, biased and unreferenced. Crap or shit work would be work of negative value such as unfunny hoaxes and perhaps the most blatant advertising. Writing "that would need an independent source", or "enemy is a non neutral term" takes longer than most expletives, but is more likely to change others behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The user's heard the community's view about that; hasn't quite fully accepted it but this is a first offence. Wikipedians constantly surprise me but I don't currently see how anyone could close this AN/I with anything more than --- or less than --- a warning or mile rebuke about bad language in edit summaries. The content removal is another matter but policy does say the user can do this. We can argue about whether it should say that ---- whether there's a case for putting some kind of limit on how much content you can remove under WP:BURDEN all at once ---- but at the moment policy does say he can do it and the place to change that is WT:V. I hope this AN/I can be closed shortly as there doesn't seem to be much else to it.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with a wrist slap, particularly with the edit-warring at the Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The problem is a combination of inappropriate blanking, the incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE on top of the blanking. And it is not a first offense: This editor has a block log, (including this one where both I and RexxS were dragged in) is subject to an IBAN (and his language and that of others was among the issues there). Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, I don't think that the WP:Burden policy says that editors can blank articles the way that Spacecowboy420 has been blanking them. You talked to him before about his understanding of the WP:Burden policy being misguided. I have only ever seen disruptive editors or otherwise very misguided editors interpret WP:Burden to that extreme. And as you, I and others keep reminding editors, WP:Preserve is also policy.

As for Spacecowboy420's profanity and civility issues, above he stated, "Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. [...] I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend." But edits like "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?" tell a different story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure?, the first diff attacks the content, quite clearly. The second diff could be construed as a PA but also as attacking the content. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How I do I figure? Well, let's see: Spacecowboy420 claimed "the intent is not to offend." Exactly how is the intent not to offend when one is stating "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and similar to an editor? While what Spacecowboy420 stated to that editor may not technically be a WP:Personal attack, it does fall under a WP:Civility issue. The rest of what took place in that section can be seen here. And, yes, we all know that WP:Civility is a widely ignored policy. I am not too concerned about Spacecowboy420's civility issues anyway. But if he is going to claim "the intent is not to offend" and similar, I am going to point to evidence that indicates otherwise. And as for the "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?", that is attacking the editor who added that content; plain and simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that its not civil, however what's the context? is the editor being called out for bulsshit after repeated poor edits or what. As for the second diff, I see how it can be seen as a PA and I would not like my contributions to be categorized in that manner either. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw how do you explain your comment "incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE" when the following edit summaries of yours seems to be very similar in content and tone? Is there some important difference that I'm failing to notice, between your use of profanity in edit summaries and mine?

crap

crap

shit

bullshit

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I explained above the last time you asked. Read my answer above. Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I do actually agree that blanking articles that were lacking sources was not the best option. I never actually considered that if an article was entirely/mainly based on badly sourced/unsourced content, that the best option would be for me to use PROD if the content needed to be removed, rather than blank it. Now that I'm aware that PRODing an article is better than blanking it, I will take that option if the need arises. Obviously, it would be better if sources were provided for the content, either by myself, or the initial editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I stated to Laura Jamieson above, "I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were 'completely unsourced articles with no notability'; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess."

In other words, you shouldn't be prodding anything unless the prod is reasonable. You should not be prodding WP:Notable articles for deletion, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as I hate to analyze myself, I guess I was giving priority to removing something just because it was unsourced, rather than taking the time to consider what would improve the article. Sometimes removing is the right choice, just as sometimes a PROD, hunting down a source, or discussion is the right choice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Will an admin assess the consensus in this discussion and close this thread? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. The issue has been well-defined and I believe that the user who is the topic of this case has had ample opportunity to respond. Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. With some admonishment that if you listen to other editors, this would have never gotten to ANI in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I gather he doesn't want to listen to other editors. Deep in the discussion, toward the end after he's had a chance to cogitate on this thread, the editor stated "I'd say that calling something a 'shit article' has exactly the same meaning as calling it a 'poor article'. Erm, sounds like an Eric Corbett type situation brewing here, which we obviously don't want, especially considering that this person has not demonstrated Eric Corbett type skills. I'll leave it to the admin corps to decide whether we need to give the person more rope or just cut straight to the end game here. We're not really set up to teach people who make statements like that the basics of interpersonal communication. OTOH we're a large and welcoming project, and we adjudicate though due processes, and taking some more damage from one individual for a while is something we can easily do in order to preserve that ethos. Tough call. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: this admin just wants to state that "no shit Sherlock", while probably not a good thing to say, is yet another wonderful English expression for which the world should be grateful. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess. Sarcasm is toxic to us, generally. I don't see that particular bon mot as being very funny past about 5th grade, and really no better than "hur dur, tardo" or similar playground taunts. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In the context of it being ok to tell someone to 'fuck off,' Why is it then worse to call an article shite? It's at least commenting on content rather than contributor :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 ?? Since when is it OK to tell someone to fuck off? If he was baited by being told to fuck off, that's different, and basically justifiable (although still not ideal). But I didn't see that in the context. The edit summary with "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?" was for this material in WrestleMania 32 (which was ref'd):

WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."

I don't know who wrote that and (and is therefore being addressed as "Sherlock") without combing through the article history, but there are no instances of the the strings "fuck" in the edit summaries.

It may well be that this material is too basic to include in that article and belongs in the basic Wrestling or WWE article (but keep in mind that many readers are from foreign parts, or are children, or are not that literate, or are ESL speakers, so we should be careful about assuming that others have what we consider to be basic knowledge). But isn't there a better way to say it? Needlessly abrasive interacting is not helpful to the project. Some people can be jollied out of that and grow to be a nicer person (at least here). Can this person? Dunno. Reckon we are going to find out sooner or later. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think the general point is clear: There is a pattern. The pattern goes beyond the occasional venting of frustration or self-deprecation of one's ownshortcomings. We need an admin to assess consensus, issue an appropriate admonition, and close. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Will the same action be also taken against Montanabw for her very similar use of profanity in her edit summaries?

But, I should also try to be a little more constructive. If the term "no shit, Sherlock" is deemed to be too offensive and/or aggressive for fellow Wikipedians, I'm sure that I can/will refrain from using it (and similar terms) in the future and still manage to express my opinion that certain content/sources/opinions are not of a good enough standard.

To be honest, these rules need to be clear. I was always under the impression that civility rules covered "attack the content, not the editor" and made my edits/comments accordingly. If that is not the case, and using profanity in an edit summary is a breach of civility rules, then of course I will adjust my tone. But please make it clear, it's much easier to read a rule and follow it, than it is to read a rule, follow it, find out that someone else interprets the rule differently, and have a week on ANI, with various people debating what exactly the rule does/doesn't cover.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

The Banner

Unfortunately, The Banner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has in the past, and also recently, been casting aspersions in the form of unsupported claims of misconduct against me in various areas of Wikipedia, stating that I have a COI, that I add improper sources, etc., which is not the case. This has been an ongoing pattern from the user. The user also performs actions against consensuses that are determined at deletion discussions they initiated, by afterward unilaterally redirecting articles that were closed with a merge result at AfD, without performing any merge of content whatsoever. This comes across as a means to realize their desired result of content removal when articles they nominate are not deleted. The user sometimes continues to do so repeatedly, regardless of consensuses that were determined. The user also has a poor habit of making repeated ad hominen statements that are uncivil and harassing in their overall nature.

I've also noticed a long-term ongoing pattern of sometimes reckless editing by this user in various pageant-related and other articles. The user routinely strips large swaths of content from articles, but this sometimes creates problems. For the record, I'm not against all of their content removal edits, some of which are useful and appropriate, but I often get the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes it comes across that the user is simply here to remove as much pageant-related content as possible, but this is often performed per their own subjective opinions, rather than based upon guidelines and policies.

Requesting community input regarding these matters. I'm particularly concerned about the casting of aspersions, dishonesty and lying, uncivil and harassing behaviors, and actions the user performs that go against the consensuses of deletion discussions.

1. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
2. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
3. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
4. Casting aspersions of COI and blatant lying and dishonesty at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015

   The Banner: "I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva." (diff)

   "My response: "There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing." (diff, and some minor copy edits after this diff)

5. Casting aspersions: diff . The user's wording here falsely suggests that I restored content with "dodgy sources", but the content actually had no sources at all to begin with. I added several reliable sources later.
6. Casting aspersions and false statements: here ("Yes, I know by now that you prefer related sources instead of independent sources or none at all."). My actions in editing the article afterward clearly indicate that this is simply not the truth: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
7. Casting aspersions and false statements: diff ("you often add related sources to prove something ...""). Notice that my actual source additions to the article afterward are entirely contrary to this false statement of adding "related sources" (e.g primary sources), particularly the "often" part): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Of course, the user left their impugning statement on the talk page after all of my edits that utilized reliable sources.
8. Uncivil behavior: A discussion on my talk page, that is now archived here. The user orders me to perform edits or "shut up", makes false, harassing statemets about my editing, and states that a supposed "halfway mess and confusion" was created. No mess or confusion of any sort was created whatsoever. It comes across that the user posts these types of statements in efforts to contiuously mar my reputation, done through the presence of the content regardless of the actual non-validity of it.
9. Performing unilateral actions against consensus at their AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004: States that a merge was performed ("merge completed"), but one was never performed (diff), unilaterally redirects again against consensus (diff), and yet again unilaterally redirects against consensus (diff, see this diff following the user's edit for more information). In the first two diffs, the user comes across as attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get their way, after their desired result of deletion was not realized.
10. Performing unilateral actions against the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists: twice redirects without performing any merge (diff, diff), against the consensus and editorial decisions of other users at the AfD discussion. The user again appears to try to get their way when the AfD they created was closed against their desired result of deletion.
11. Reversions that introduced factual errors: blanket reverts swaths of content, creating factual errors, twice in a row: diff, diff. I had to correct this twice: diff, diff. It comes across that the user does not bother reading edit summaries left by other users, and simply comes along and presses the undo button, regardless of consequence. This type of behavior is damaging to the encyclopedia.
12. Blanket removal of properly verified content I added to an article per their subjective opinion of "irrelevant fancruft": diff. Wikipedia content is based upon what reliable sources report, which has more weight compared to subjective opinion. This blanket removal had a poor side effect of removing a reliable source I added to the article that had to be rescued by AnomieBOT (diff). I then restored the content (diff). These types of actions make it difficult to improve articles, because after improvements are performed in accordance with guidelines (e.g. using reliable sources and citations), the user just comes along and presses the undo button, basing the removal upon personal opinion rather than guidelines and policies.
13. Blanket removal of reliable sources in the references section of this article: diff. The edit summary left used a generic copy/paste rationale that did not address this aspect of the content removal. This created unnecessary work in having to restore the valid sources I added to the article, which again, were removed for no logical reason.
14. Removal of sourced content using a generic copy paste rationale that stated in part "WP:OR": diff. The content was all verified with inline citations to a reliable source; as such it's not original research.
15. Casting aspersions and false accusations of my sincere efforts to improve an article being "close to vandalism" and adding "related sources" and "not reliable sources": User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/January § Miss Earth 2015 I responded with a summary of the wholly reliable sources I added, but the user then continued along the same line, stating, "...you add or defend related sources". I did not add any related sources, nor did I "defend" them. Notice in the article's Revision history circa this time period that I actually removed many unreliable sources from the article after adding reliable ones. It comes across that the user very likely didn't even bother to actually view the sources added to the article, nor noticed my removal of unreliable sources I performed, instead simply sticking to their pattern of making baseless ad hominem false claims. This also comes across as intentional obfuscation, rather than a discussion of facts.
16. Uncivil tone toward another user: diff

More examples of these types of behavior exist, but hopefully this provides an adequate summary of the ongoing pattern of problematic editing and behaviors performed by this user. I have consistently remained calm and civil with this user despite all of this, stating my case in various discussions in a collegial manner, but the user does not tend to act in kind. It would be nice if the user would stop casting aspersions, stop being dishonest, tone-down their rhetoric and abrasive statements and behaviors, and instead try to work in in a collegial manner with others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addendum) – Additional evidence of these types of ongoing behavior patterns by the user is located at the following past ANI discussions listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
2. Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Mr. North America is very enthusiastic in adding irrelevant info to articles about pageants. He does that so often, that he gives me the idea that he has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. Most recent on Miss World where he ignored the lack of relevant info in the to-be-merged-articles to add a massive load of stuff to the articles. Part of that is "sourced" with photo-sites or galleries, not exactly sources conform WP:RS. Mr. North America has a clear lack of distinction between notable and not-notable, claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website. By and large, this is a good section about his opinions, strengthening my believes: Talk:Miss_World#Merger complete. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only used one "photo site" in the article, specifically Getty Images, not plural as stated above as "photo sites or galleries". The site is used four times in the article, and is done only when I am unable to find any other sources to verify content. I explained why in part on the article's talk page: diff. Here's a more recent comment: diff. Also, I have not used any "related websites" in the article, as incorrectly accused above. Getty could be considered as somewhat of a primary source in that the photographers were physically at the event, but primary sources are allowed to be used moderately for verification. Getty is not "related" to the Miss World pageant. Getty's images cover a diverse range of topics and are used by reliable newspapers all over the world. Overall, just more inappropriate aspersions (e.g. another baseless COI accusation, "claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website", etc. etc.) I'm not "claiming that something is notable" or making any type of claims at all, I'm verifying Wikipedia content to improve articles for Wikipedia's readers. Other than the four Getty sources, all other sources I added are reliable, secondary sources. Your strange statement above of "... lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" carries no weight; each and every fact in an article does not have to stand up to notability tests, as though if any mention of anything and every snippet of content has to qualify for its own article. This is not how Wikipedia functions. You seem to be confusing verification with topic notability. It appears that the "lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" is solely applicable to yourself, rather than me. All of these aspersions are getting quite old. It needs to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor does a tiny snippet of a source make a subject notable. The Banner talk 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between verification and topic notability. Verification of content is a different concept, which is used to confirm that content is accurate. Again, every bit of information in an article does not have to pass WP:N as though if it has to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that everything that is verifiable is automatically notable. At least, that is the way you act. And in the mean time, you just continue with adding irrelevant unsourced info, like this. The Banner talk 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ - I have nothing against The Banner but personally it seems like they want to get rid of every pagent article on the project, I admit about a year or 2 ago I would !vote Delete on every pagent AFD on the basis of this place didn't need them however I begun to realize this was extremely disruptive and goes against what the project is ... which is why I no longer !vote on them, TB however seems to nominate them on a daily basis and without searching for sources (and when sources are provided they refute every single one), and then we have fact they redirect articles even without consensus, Personally I believe TB should be topic-banned from pagents altogether but that's just my honest opinion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD Statistics for User:The Banner. 75.3% is deleted as I had suggested. The rest is kept, still open or merged. The Banner talk 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to stop working on pageant articles. To my opinion, that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, as it also means stopping with hunting down sockpuppeteers/meatpuppeteers and AfD'ing substandard articles. But if that is what the people want, I give in. Good luck with all spam that will be coming. The Banner talk 18:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your editing or nominating of these articles, in fact I agree to a lesser extent with your position on most of the content. The main issue I see is the accusations towards Northamerica of having a COI. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Temporary topic ban? This might work and calm things down. The Banner could work elsewhere, hopefully productively. A temporary break from the subject matter of pageants would allow things to cool down and for perspective to be gained. Say, three to six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both ways? Then I can agree with a three month ban. The Banner talk 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "Both ways?" mean? This thread is about you and your disruptive editing in the topic of pageants. You already agreed a few paragraphs above that you are "prepared to stop working on pageant articles". Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you guys at least take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 what triggered this sequence of events. Admin or not. The Banner talk 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, of course it's not a topic-ban proposal for NA1000. That's clear from the wording of my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a somewhat involved editor. My involvement comes from the fact that I originally merged the articles into Miss World[3][4][5][6][7] following the various debates that closed as merge. Northamercia1000 reverted some of these which showed up on my alerts, and lead to this conversation and this statement of disapproval. As far as the content aspects go I fall very much in line with The Banner, for example this was how it looked when I made my comment.

I must admit I found the COI claims strange. Northamerica1000 is a dedicated editor in a range of topics, and his editing habits here do not seem any different than at any other articles he takes an interest in. Not sure what COI is suspected, maybe he is a contestant. Anyway that should definitely stop. Points 9 and 10 above I do not see as a problem. In fact I had already merged the information from 10 (not to Northamerica1000s satisfaction, but merged nonetheless), so I don't see that as being against consensus, but more a disagreement on how much to merge. The other points are in articles I have not frequented so do not know enough background. Some look like content disputes, although civility could be better from The Banner. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, Aircorn. I was working on a daily basis to remove crystal balls, irrelevant info fancruft from pageant-articles. And then it is very annoying to see somebody on a regular basis restoring unsourced fancruft and/or irrelevant info. So yes, a break from it could be a good idea to restore a fresh look. I might have lost my cool. The Banner talk 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: What seems to be happening here is the interaction of a deletionist and an inclusionist. Accusations of "COI", "spam", "fancruft", and "unreliable sources", and the various general aspersions, are entirely inappropriate and need to completely stop immediately. I think a cool-down period for The Banner of three months' voluntary or enforced topic ban would allow the situation to cool down. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused about the labels deletionist and inclusionist. I am certainly not someone who AfD's everything he can nor do I want to include everything what is on offer. But I do belief in WP:RS, with independent, reliable and prior published sources present in the article to prove notability and relevance. The Banner talk 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of pageants, you are a deletionist and NA1000 is an inclusionist. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been somewhat involved in these AfD's by The Banner involving many of their pageant AfD and speedy nominations, including issues on Miss America 2017 where instead of working on sourcing, just asked for constant speedying of the article until we had a solid source it was occurring (in that case, the signing of a television deal) despite the fact that most pageants almost always occur year after year outside of being affected by civil unrest, natural disasters or the organizing institution going bankrupt. The nom for Nuestra Belleza México 2015 (which ended up in 2016 due to various Trump/Miss Universe issues) was the same way with a very spare deletion reason you'd expect from someone who was new. The problem with pageant sourcing is it's a case where we have to deal with the best we can; pretty much almost anything but the most major pageants are either news sources happy that 'local person makes good' by winning a pageant, "drama" stories (most involving the Miss USA/Miss Universe organizations and said former owner of them) or just raw PR that has to be digested in a sanely written form with neutral sourcing; like most entertainment topics, finding a sober, completely neutral, and dull source for pageant stories is a needle in the haystack situation. We have to make do with what sourcing these have, but Banner has been unable or unwilling to compromise, even when I said in the Miss USA 2017 AfD that I would personally look after that as a redirect until we have sourced information and that continually bringing pageants to AfD is a waste of time that could be better spent on other projects. I agree with Aircorn that a topic ban for Banner is appropriate unless they can find a middle ground between sourcing things well, understanding that WPBP has a right to their article purview, and taking anything with a "Miss (x)", "Mr. (x)" or "Mrs. (x)" off to deletion straightaway. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Just for the record I was not advocating for a topic ban or indeed anything else against any of the editors. My presence here is simply as an editor who became involved in one of the incidents. I was just trying to express my reading of the situation as an experienced and relatively impersonal (about this topic at least) editor. Did you mean Softlavender instead perhaps? AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That I did, thanks for noticing it; my error, and apologies. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Interesting that you start about the Miss USA 2017 AfD, where you completely ignored the point - and not only from me - that redirected articles will be restored multiple times before they are salted and that an admin needs a sound base to salt such an article. Like having an AfD to build on. An opinion based on experience... The Banner talk 09:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Nate's analysis of the entire situation is quite accurate and neutral. In terms of the Miss USA 2017 AfD, it's you who are ignoring Nate's point above (and indeed the consensus of the AfD). Your argumentativeness in this ANI thread does not speak well for you. If this is the sort of attitude you are going to maintain about pageant articles, the proposed topic ban will likely turn out permanent (at least two editors, Davey and Nate, have supported that on this thread) instead of short-term. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself, my friend. And I hope that you have noticed by now that I obey the voluntary topic ban from the day NorthAmerica filed this case. The Banner talk 08:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in question is extremely hard to work with. As a recent example, see Template talk:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands, where a discussion about removing (and restoring) an empty line devolves into accusations of "editwarring". WP:BATTLEGROUND? Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that due to the disruptive behaviour of Kleuske on the Dutch Wikipedia, the ArbCom put in place a total interaction ban (on my request) upon us. See nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Projectverstorend gedrag van The Banner. She is now introducing the same mentality and behaviour here. To avoid any future problems I request a permanent interaction ban between Kleuske and me to serve the peace. The Banner talk 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request: PatW

UNBLOCKED:

(non-admin closure) PatW unblocked and Prem Rawat TBAN still in force. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

PatW (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. This user was blocked in November of 2012 (i.e. well over two years ago) for "attempted outing". That's an incredibly serious charge. However, the user states s/he understands and respects the reasons for the block and will not make the same mistake again. Combined with the incident occurring over two years ago, I'm slightly in favour of unblocking. However, I freely admit I'm not familiar with this particular case. Ping @Risker: as blocking admin, and I welcome discussion from others. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have had a quick look. I see walls of text on their talk page, and it seems the block was because of outing during a thread they started on WP:JIMBOTALK entitled "What an incredible *****y waste of my time that was" that is not particularly conductive towards writing an encyclopedia. That in turn was caused by a large content / conduct dispute on Prem Rawat that went towards Arbcom. My gut instinct is to decline the unblock request, but first I would like them to explain what they have learned from that entire episode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In edit PatW says, "it's quite hard for ethical people who value being fully accountable to appreciate the need for editors of my children's first encyclopaedic resource to be so irresponsible as to be anonymous". I'd like to know what kind of change he has undergone which would set aside those very strong sentiments. It does not seem to me that one could easily set aside one's ethics or concern for their children merely to conform to our !rules. Perhaps that statement was merely grandstanding, but it would be good to hear him say that. Moreover, it seems pretty clear from his editing history that he's a single-purpose editor focused entirely on Prem Rawat. If he's going to come back, it should be with the understanding that it's only going to be allowed if he's interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia per se and as a whole and that he must demonstrate that by engaging in substantial editing on topics unrelated to Prem Rawat. To that end, I support allowing him to return only if it is with a topic ban on Prem Rawat and all reasonably related topics, including edits on articles, article talk, user talk, and all other talk pages and noticeboard pages, in all instances broadly interpreted, and on the condition that he perform at least 3,000 non-automated, non-automation-assisted article edits on matters not within that topic ban within the next 12 months. If those edits are not achieved or the topic ban is violated, the full indefinite block will be restored at the time of the failure or violation; if he achieves them, then the topic ban will be dropped at the end of the 12 month period, but with the understanding that he must continue to have a continuing substantial number of article edits outside the Prem Rawat topic area. The removal of the topic ban will not be automatic; he must come back here to get it lifted (though that action should be merely bureaucratic if the other conditions are fulfilled, this being merely to have someone confirm that they have) and it will remain in force until he does so. In short, if he's coming back to be a Wikipedia editor, more power to him; if he's just coming back to flog Prem Rawat issues, not so. How's that sound? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

3000 edits, in 12 months, unautomated. That seems unnecessarily specific. If you want to allow the editor to return and impose the ban on the article on Prem Rawat and all related articles then fine, I agree that's for the best, but to enforce an edit count seems ridiculous. Perhaps a more appropriate requirement would be that at the end of 12 months probation their contributions are checked and if they have demonstrated their willingness to participate in the community then let them continue. Keep in mind that not all editors here are capable of improving the encyclopaedia day in and day out, some come every couple of months to improve one or two articles or what have you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1) He's not requesting to edit that article but others, so a TBAN seems OK. 2) Is merely telling someone to Google a Wikiname outing? If I Google TransporterMan and that userid is used on another site with a real name, who did the outing and should that be considered the same thing as saying "TM is really John Doe?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"He's not requesting to edit that article but others" I'm aware of this, my comment was centered around the edit count requirement of 3,000 unautomated edits (in general). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Try unbanning - no restrictions, but somebody keep an eye on him. I think that Wikipedia should not have permanent lifelong bans when we allow fresh anonymous editors all the time. The devil you know is not worse than the devil you don't much of the time. In this case, there is more reason for mercy: the editor he was up against, User:Momento, was topic-banned for battleground behavior. [8] It seems like common sense that when an editor gets into a dispute and the editor on the other side gets sanctioned, you should recognize he was in a tough position to begin with that diminishes his fault. Now as to the precise reason for the ban -- we have long had a contradiction between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. Sometimes the person who delves into a COI gets banned, and sometimes the person delved into gets banned, and I don't know if anyone can predict which. It is clear that telling people even to Google someone's handle is "opposition research" that generally is undesirable when we want to focus on content disputes - but whether that demands a Wikipedia death penalty, and whether we should allow some way that COIs can be investigated by the community, that is a matter of Wikipedia politics. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm more inclined towards TransporterMan's thinking, without the edit limitation. Although, given their banning was due to their editing in the Prem Rawat article I would think an indefinite topic ban with an appeal no earlier than 12 months. (which is the same as what TM said just worded more explicitly) Blackmane (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think editing restriction is always a good measure to a certain degree, although I would be in favor of a restriction less than a TBAN (so that in case something goes wrong we can increase it to TBAN before block/ban). Something like 0RR(1RR)/requiring all major changes (to be defined) accompanied by talk page discussion? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I remember something about this case, although not about the specific circumstances that led to the current block. As noted above, PatW was essentially an SPA user, concentrated on the Prem Rawat topic. PatW was a party to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, although he was not sanctioned there and he is not listed in the section "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" of the case. Still, given PatW's past editing history, I think it would be best to accompany the unblock with an indefinite topic ban on anything related to Prem Rawat, which can be reviewed at WP:AN, say, in 8 months or so. In his unblock requests PatW says that he would like to edit articles related to music and WWI. If he can do that for about 8 months without significant problems, the topic ban can be lifted then. But it would be useful to keep the TB initially, as a preventative measure, to see if the user can in fact edit constructively in non-Prem Rawat related areas and whether he can overcome the temptation to resume old habits. Nsk92 (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• (No comment either way on the unblock request itself, but)...it looks like PatW is already under a topic ban for all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. The topic ban was placed ([9]) several days prior to PatW's indefinite block, and does not appear to have been rescinded or withdrawn. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I suppose it would be OK to unblock and to remind PatW that TB is still in effect. It appears that TB was imposed under the discretionary sanctions arbitration provisions, so PatW would also need to be given a link with the info regarding requesting appeals and modifications of DS topic bans. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin take action on this unblock request now? Nsk92 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take action. The action I will take is to lift the block and remind the user they are under a topic-ban with regards to Prem Rawat. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

30/500 in response to Никита-Родин-2002

For the background on this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. Since mid-April, this sockmaster has had 36 usernames and 22 IPs reported at SPI. These are by no means the only IPs he's used; there's probably at least another 50 in that time period, but it's often not useful to report them since he changes IPs frequently.

The modus operandi of this sockmaster is to introduce false information relating to the chart rankings and certifications of Green Day songs and albums. He occasionally also introduces similar false information to Kelly Clarkson, The Who, and Fall Out Boy related articles, mostly as part of a pattern of edits across multiple articles that reinforce his edits related to Green Day. For example, he might edit a Kelly Clarkson article to say one of her songs never topped the charts and also edit a Green Day article to say their song topped the charts during that same period. This often also extends to articles such as List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Here are some example diffs: [10] [11]

This vandalism is sneaky and often goes undetected by recent changes patrollers, who assume the change is in good-faith. Semi-protection has recently proved ineffective, as the master has adopted a new strategy to get around it without detection. As seen with Ohlava, he registers an account weeks in advance, rapidly makes 10 edits in userspace, and then jumps right into semi-protected articles making disruptive edits for hours until blocked. When he decides to activate his "sleeper" accounts, he uses multiple accounts at once to maximize disruption and make it more difficult to effectively respond to the sockpuppetry. See the most recent report at the SPI link above for an example of two sleeper accounts being activated at the same time immediately after a non-sleeper vandalized articles that were not semi-protected.

I requested full protection in the midst of this most recent spree, but it was denied by MusikAnimal as too severe a response. A WP:30/500 restriction on these articles is the ideal solution. Kelapstick, a sitting arbitrator, recently commented at User talk:Opabinia regalis indicating that the Arbitration Committee does not have full control over the 30/500 protection level, and the community has discretion to support its use on any articles.

Should the community authorize administrators to apply 30/500 protection at their discretion to any articles where confirmed socks of Никита-Родин-2002 have continued their long-term pattern of vandalism despite semi-protection? ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: is it possible to have some manner of edit notice for recent changes patrollers to see to alert them to specific page issues, in this case to be wary of sneaky changes to rankings or anything Green Day related? If not, 30/500 makes sense. I've encountered this user before and their persistence and perseveration is remarkable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I could create an edit notice, but that doesn't pop up on Huggle or similar anti-vandalism tools. Most anti-vandalism tools won't even flag this in the first place and an edit notice can't change their algorithms unfortunately. An edit notice would only be shown once an editor clicked the edit tab, which I doubt many RC patrollers do. ~ Rob^Talk 05:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of pending changes level 2 as an option, the only alternative for persistent subtly vandalizing sockpuppetry that semi-protection fails to stop is full protection. 30/500 raises the bar but still allows editing. Fences&Windows 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until a more specific list of pages is given. I am worried about the potential for collateral damage: we have to recognize that pop music articles have high traffic counts and are more likely to be edited by "casual" editors. For example, a good-faith music fan who is only interested in a few artists may only edit sporadically, perhaps only when newsworthy events occur that involve their artist. It is easy to see why casual editors would accumulate enough edits to be autoconfirmed, but not extendedconfirmed. This is exactly the kind of editor that the broad use of 30/500 protection would drive away. With a more specific list of pages, at least the community could read through the page histories and examine the potential for collateral damage. Altamel (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm confused. BU Rob13, when I saw your request for page protection for Wake Me Up When September Ends, I decided to apply 30/500 for a couple of weeks in preference to full protection for a few days. Then I saw your comment that 30/500 doesn't have community consensus. But it's in the drop-down menu of protection options, and the ArbCom hasn't said that it can't be used. Is there a community discussion somewhere saying it shouldn't be used outside certain areas? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked around, I assume people are relying on this January 2016 RfC – New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection – where there was agreement to introduce the new usergroup. Robert McClenon closed it and added:

"Consensus is in favor of implementing this feature, with the noted reservation that it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason."

I've only glanced at the RfC responses, but it's not clear that those restrictions gained consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Meh I don't particularly care for the precedent, and I was someone who dealt with Nikita way back when he was primarily doing Rainbow Fish and Ice Age vandalism (tbh I've always questioned the relationship between that Nikita and the current Nikita, but that's neither here nor there; both are sufficiently disruptive). My worry is that allowing 30/500 for articles targeted by persistent sockpuppeteers will create a situation where the exception—and 30/500 is clearly intended to be an exception—will swallow the rule, that we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 30/500 was crafted to deal with mass disruption from a variety of unconnected or unconnectable accounts—where no conspiracy between individuals could possibly be proven. Have edit filters been tried? PC for specific affected articles? In any event, I concur with Altamel that even if we consider this appropriate, we need an indication that there's a limited number of articles, or that we can describe them with specificity. In general I just think the administrative practices involving the application and administration of 30/500 is not sufficiently sussed out that we should be considering an expansion of the mandate merely for convenience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a broad deployment of ECP to a large category (music album related articles?). However I would likely support a definite length PC2 after the targets were better identified. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until more clear general guidelines for 30/500 are created. This rollout doesn't need any further complication. Re-examining PC2 is a good idea. BethNaught (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Having further reviewed the evidence, that the current situation is being allowed to continue is absurd. PC2 would be bad because someone would still have to verify changes, with outsiders to the situation possibly being duped, and someone who knows about it having to fix it anyway.
  • This would be a provisional measure until the community decides clear guidelines in the RFC which appears to be upcoming. BethNaught (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above. I'm concerned that these folks will then be aware of the 30/500 requirements, make 500 dummy edits, wait a month, and start vandalizing. We really need a guideline for WP:EC-P set up soon. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: By that logic, shouldn't we get rid of semi-protection? Achieving extended confirmed status takes substantially more time and effort. That translates into less socks and less vandalism. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ... Yeah I'd agree. I think semi-protection is effective for cases where folks don't want to wait. EC-P might be fine for one or two cases then. If EC-P is rolled out in a big way, the amount of dummy/useless edits from new users might see increase, which is probably detrimental to the encyclopedia. This was a weak oppose for this one case, and don't feel very strongly, and would go with consensus on this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some pages that are particularly in need of this restriction at the moment include Wake Me Up When September Ends, Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song), List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of 2005, and List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Take a look through those edit histories, which are typical of the Nikita-hit articles. It's almost exclusively socks and editors reverting those socks. Very few people edit song articles from over a decade ago which have already been expanded to include most information on the subject. We have two options here, really; either accept the fact that newer editors won't be able to edit these articles or accept the fact that they will remain in a near-constant state of factual inaccuracy. Both options suck, but one provides an accurate encyclopedia to our readers. I'm a strong supporter of the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but this is a situation where that philosophy is stopping us from providing factual content on an entire topic area. I should also mention that if the community fails to grant 50/300 here on procedural grounds, I plan to file a full ArbCom case relating to the topic area of Green Day, broadly construed. We need some solution here, because failing to implement a protection level that can effectively stop this sockmaster is implicitly volunteering dozens of hours of editors, SPI clerks, and CheckUsers who have been trying (and failing, really) to keep these articles factually correct. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  For that list, I'd consider a short term (say 60 day) IAR PC2 level to see if it is effective over ec2 - for immediate relief you can just go full protection while this is worked out. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  There isn't even consensus for PC2 to exist as a protection level, though. Full protection was declined at RFPP with the rationale that it should be handled at SPI (which has never been used as a venue to protect articles, as far as I'm aware). ~ Rob^Talk 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of this use of ECP for obvious reasons (but see also this thread on my talkpage about procedural matters). But I was surprised to see the suggestion for IAR PC2 over (sort-of) IAR ECP for this. @Xaosflux:, why would PC2 be better? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis: - here is my IAR reasoning for this specific case: while not heavily edited, these articles are more likely to have casual readers hit them then many other random articles (as they concern popular music) - PC2 presents more of a "encyclopedia anyone can edit" interface than ECP does that could possibly convert a reader to an editor. If these articles were on more "controversial" topics, I'd be more in favor of ECP. FWIW, I'm still in favor of the community guidelines for ECP being completed so that people can either stop asking for this, or point to the standard conditions for use. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Thanks. Looking at the example articles, it seems like Rob is right that there's little to no editing going on other than reverting socks. So ECP vs PC2 doesn't matter much, probably, except that PC2 requires a little more work from admins (not sure if that's a feature or a bug). I agree entirely on your last point :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless I missed the link to the discussion where Arbcom authorized the use of 30/500 in this case, as is currently required for any new deployment of 30/500. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Arbcom provided some guidance for how to use it in the context of AE and DS. What to do outside of that context is up to the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Pinging just so you see the above. Multiple ArbCom members have explicitly stated their guidance was not intended to be a list of exclusive uses of 30/500 and that they consider community application of this protection level to be valid. @Opabinia regalis: An interesting thought to ponder: If enough editors mistakenly think that the community is unable to handle 30/500 protection, does it de facto become true? ~ Rob^Talk 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that interpretation. Arbcom authorized 30/500 for use in areas which it authorizes, and it has not authorized it for use here: this is neither discretionary sanction nor arbitration enforcement. The question of whether or not the community supports its use outside of those deliberately restrictive criteria has not been asked, and as I'm sure you know questions on changes to protection policies traditionally attract very long and heated discussions. We're talking about applying a very high level of protection to a large range of frequently edited articles here. I sympathize with the situation, but this is not the way to develop a solution. A very good way is the draft RfC advertised below, and a very bad thing to do would be to start applying it in advance of that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  If your view of this is what's maintained by the community, then fine, but this will probably become a full ArbCom case against an already indefinitely blocked editor, which is fairly absurd. ~ Rob^Talk 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We have an unusual vandalism case that our usual tools are inadequate to deal with, but we have a new tool that may solve the problem, and there's nothing stopping us implementing that tool except beauracracy. Well, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, we do need a broader discussion to delineate exactly when using this new tool is appropriate, but that's no reason not to use it in a case as clear-cut as this. Plus, this first use of 30/500 as a countervandalism measure will provide useful data to inform that discussion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Since this community clearly isn't ready for elimination of IP editing and a one-person/one-account and sign-in-to-edit policy that would make this sort of unbannable sneaky vandalism difficult to cause and easy to correct, this sort of restriction is the best available tool... Carrite (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I unarchived this; we need a proper closure for this ongoing issue. Additional sleepers have been activated since this thread started. ~ Rob^Talk 19:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Bumping once more to prevent archiving. I'm on vacation/mobile but I'll post at ANRFC tonight. ~ Rob^Talk 20:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Nikita has been very busy lately, and their MO is highly difficult to detect if you're not familiar with the case. They've been socking for nearly 2 years and have used about 200 sockpuppets. It's time to deal with this proactively by deploying a more effective tool. GAB^gab 01:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as above, per GeneralizationsAreBad and others, due to document long term abuse and unusually high levels of vandalism. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Adding DNAU template so to avoid archive issues. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support - I must have be having a bad afternoon, and I apologise for sounding like a grumpy old fart, but I didn't spend time and effort improving some of these articles so somebody could bugger about with them for a laugh. In particular, I have been annoyed to have to go back to my book sources like this one (as I don't memorise chart or sales figures in my head, and AGF that a change is correct until I can prove otherwise) and discover a whole bunch of this guy's edits were just flat out wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support and not just for Никита-Родин-2002. 30/500 was a means to keep some of our most controversial topics under control, but it's characteristics would work well to fend off LTAs while still allowing reasonably experienced users to contribute. The hope is LTAs will simply give up; Working their way to extended confirmed just to make a few abusive edits and get blocked again is likely not worth their while. We can't keep making expensive edit filters for each and every issue of sockpuppetry, and no one is having fun combing through revision histories fact checking every change. So long as we play by the same rules – don't protect preemptively, and use it only if truly necessary – 30/500 is going to save us a lot of headaches and still allow the articles to develop. Looking forward to the upcoming RfC mentioned below — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Extended confirmed protection policy

Before I went to GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, I started a discussion to gather ideas, but we need more voices. Mz7 has a draft of an RFC here. If you haven't done so already, please comment or edit the draft, because we need to move forward with this. I'd like to take the RFC live in the next week or so and we need input. Katie^talk 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Death date vandalism, 10th December, NATO ip

NO ACTION:

(non-admin closure) Too late to apply a block to the IP, the IP was tagged as {{Shared IP gov|NATO Headquarters}}. Nothing else to do here. Thats all folks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Stumbled across 152.152.31.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been changing death dates to the 10th December. IP appears to be from NATO HQ. Thought it might ring some bells somewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what bells it's supposed to ring, but it's too stale for any type of enforcement at 14 hours old. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Repeated vandalism by separate accounts

BLOCKED & PAGE PROTECTED:

(non-admin closure) DragonflySixtyseven protected UFC 202 and Rowdypup was blocked for violating wp:3RR by Nyttend for 48 Hours. The OP is also advised to post to WP:AIV for a faster response for action against vandals and WP:RPP for page protection requests. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Two accounts are vandalizing separate pages, and have continued to vandalize even after reverts.

• 82.18.147.206 (talk · contribs) – UFC 202, continuing to vandalize
  • Request: Block and semi-protection of page
• Rowdypup (talk · contribs) – Finding Dory, continuously adding unsourced content and violating WP:FILMPLOT
  • Request: Block and possible 2-day protection of page

--MarioProtIV (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify parties when you post about them here, since you have not I have taken the liberty of notifying them --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: May want to keep WP:AIV in mind. It's usually quicker and easier when reporting run-of-the-mill vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note: UFC 202 was protected by DragonflySixtyseven for ten days --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rowdypup seems to have engaged in multiple edit wars excluding Finding Dory. I could consider a block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Rowdypup for 48 hours, due to 6+RR at Finding Dory. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Help required

(non-admin closure) Article semi'd for a year, OP given advice, seems like that's it, folks. BMK (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This will be my last ANI on the subject, Article knanaya requires intervention of an intermediary who can acknowledge both parties equally. I was about to throw the towel with the issues in Knanaya. But if allowed this might be misused in the future as the edit history shows to gain upper-hand by the disputing editor. Their was an emotional ANI posted about the matter before but was closed without response. The current situation is that the article should be unblocked immediately and reverted to its non-conflicting version that was there before the block. The new edit is all well sourced, neutral and identifiable from google books. It is also free from fringe theories and assumptions. A new rude form of keeping the article as they want is even reverting talk page statements that is relevant to the article mostly done to tunnel vision other future editors to the version these editors require to see using abusive and highhanded methods like shielding their actions using inactive blocked accounts, threatening blocks, issuing ip blocks, reverting without active conversation to invite edit wars and thus blocking pseudo-justificatory. The new edit was made using an earlier version as template and is in no way acts of vandalism, this could be verified. As a community member these subduing and article blemishing acts with non-value content are violations to religious identity and an open mockery to world view of the subject with inconsistencies-check this (template i used, it seems like a compromise attempt from previous users). Parts of the current problem might be WP:BAIT and unintentional WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The whole thing is an extinguishing process/childish games this is why attention of a overseer is required.

What works with me: Clear statements regarding the edit, in case of problematic areas honest specification of the policy and the verse for quick search, identification and rectification. A smidgen of civility(reducing burnout) and direct(what i say & why i say it from experience and policies) talk at the article talk page. 61.1.147.230 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Knanaya. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a year, which is a long time but may be necessary in view of a long history of sockpuppetry. My advice to the original poster would be to register an account, unless they are evading a block or ban, in which case my advice to them is to go away and my advice to Checkuser is to block them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cant edit, filter block for contributing to ANI, this is the reason for no talk. Check reasons for the article block and its authenticity(sock-over the time the editor has used it for multiple users-tact ?) and especially the new edit reverted and the history of raised concerns with not acknowledged statements about the content for now.117.241.55.161 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.217 (talk)

---

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

IPs tagging drafts (sometimes stale, sometimes unfit for mainspace) for AfC

Not quite sure what to do with this. Earlier this month I was surprised to see that a draft I started a while back, which is in no way appropriate for articlespace, was rejected by AfC. I've never tagged a draft with AfC, so that's weird. Turns out an IP tagged it, and a bunch of other drafts (80.6.2.189). Mostly older drafts, but not all stale, and irrespective of (a) whether the user who created it is active, or (b) whether it's fit for articlespace. The former is commonsense and the latter was explicitly rejected at a recent RfC. I mentioned the IP at the talk page of that RfC and BU Rob13 undid the edits I hadn't. A couple weeks later, another IP (217.38.85.222) did the same thing to a few other drafts I had started. Undid again. And right now, 94.117.76.151 is doing the same thing in the same way (not to ones I started, but one happen to be on my watchlist). It makes me wonder how often this happens and perhaps isn't noticed. Geolocating the 3 IPs puts them in the UK, but that's about the only connection. What would the best course of action be here? (as I'm not sure, it's possible this is the wrong venue -- perhaps it should be at VPR to propose an edit filter or something). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer, my thought would be that clearly unjustified nomination of drafts for AFC is as disruptive as mass nomination of G13s (see above). Unfortunately, it isn't obvious what should be done, because it isn't vandalism as such. However, I do not assume good faith. I assume that the IP is deliberately being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is disruptive. The debate about how to maintain the draft space has been challenging and both "sides" of the debate (although I hate characterizing it that way) have strong opinions. But this is not the way forward, and this is coming from someone who lines up closer to the deletionist side in draft space. That IP was even tagging the drafts of active editors and wound up being blocked for continuing after being asked to stop by multiple editors. ~ Rob^Talk 16:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Also 217.38.95.117 has started today. I will undo. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've undone 86.187.170.75 and 217.38.86.69. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

Every user has the right to attempt to nominate an article for good article status, and it's up to the reviewer to decide whether or not the article will pass. However, Curly Turkey, who has made no contributions to discussing the content of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, has been doing nothing whatsoever on the article's talk page except unilaterally edit warring to delete my nomination.[12][13][14][15] Deleting the nomination would be unacceptable under any circumstances, but I think every single Wikipedia editor should be able to agree that deleting a nomination without even bothering to give a single reason on the talk page is completely unacceptable. Curly Turkey has never stated any specific reason why the article is not good article status, or stated anything else for that matter, on the article talk page. Curly Turkey has never sought to gain any consensus for his unilateral actions, and he is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith because he keeps going around telling me and other users outright that I'm not editing in good faith.[16][17] For a long time now, he's been making hostile comments against me wherever I go.[18][19] I've been working hard on improving the article and Curly Turkey has given no evidence that any of my work on this article was done in bad faith. However, I could work collaboratively with Curly Turkey if he was capable of speaking to me in any way except threats and insults. What's more, Curly Turkey has already been banned three times for edit warring, and edit warring to delete talk page comments is especially bad. In fact, Curly Turkey seems to be in the habit of deleting my talk page comments, because he's done it before. This sort of behavior is obviously harassment.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well; it was obviously of import enough for you to edit war over. _Muffled ^Pocketed

From what I can see, CT is saying you need consensus to remove those tags and you are saying you don't. Given that all of this occurred three days ago, might it not be wise for you to see if you can compromise the matter? I understand you feel you've been hard done by. I would ask CT if they are of the view that the problems mentioned in the tags still persist in the article. I realize to some extent this is content, but let's see if there's common ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And out in the open, of course. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You're claim of edit-warring is misleading at best, just look at the dates of your own diffs. That said, there are currently no tags on the article and my question is who removed them? If you removed them then that is a problem, if somebody uninvolved removed them I'd like to know their reasoning if they provided it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [20][21], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [22]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[23] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you are correct they should, I do not condone their actions, however I also do not condone your own. I would take less of an issue with your removal of the POV tag if other edits after your removal of the tag hadn't quoted POV issues in their edit summary. Clearly, other editors, who are not involved here, believe that the changes had not removed the POV issue. I have taken a second look at your report and find that there is an astounding amount of assume bad faith on Curley Turkey's part, however, I will wait to give them a chance to respond here first before passing on any judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some of the conflict here is the same as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, which TH1980 was a party to (along with several of the many ANI threads leading to that case). It also looks like nearly the same exchange happened with CT and CurtisNaito just a few months ago. Guess we need CT to weigh in to add context/justification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Especially since CT mentions CurtisNalto in an edit summary. Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There are longstanding issues with TH1980 and CurtisNaito at History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture (and other articles, for all I know) regarding their misrepresentation and choices of sources, etc. As a result, the consensus is that they must seek a consensus from the other contributors to these articles before nominating them for GA (note: I am not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture, aside form copyediting). CurtisNaito was blocked for editwarring to nominate History of Japan without seeking a consensus he knew he needed, and TH1980 was a contributor to the editwarring (but didn't get blocked).

With regard to the Korean influence article, the issues are extrememly controversial, and several editors have disputed TH1980 and CurtisNaito's handling of the article (particularly their choice of sources). User:I JethroBT told them "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months after disputed sources were removed, the two added them back in, and CurtisNaito told TH1980 the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations"—meaning the disputed citations "which were already part of previous versions of the article". Immediately afterwards they nommed it for GA (from which TH1980 got my first warning). Then out of the blue, without even the pretense of seeking the consensus to nom that he knows is required of him, he nominates the article again. With no edit summary. Something he's done before in the hopes of just slipping this through. We've been through this pattern with him enough times that AingGF is no longer credible.

These problems have been going on nearly a year since I first got involved, and from the sounds of things they've been going on much longer than that at other articles as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisfied. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - looking at CT's involvement with Korean influence on Japanese culture, it seems he has vested at least enough in building this article for a seat at the talk page to collaborate on certain matters, like putting it forward for peer review. It seems contrary, to me, to suggest otherwise.--John Cline (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Like I said above, I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources, and try to stay away from contributing to politically charged articles like this one. Take a look at the talk page to see how much is in dispute, including in the three archives that have built up, and the AFD. Remember, this is but one article where these issues keep coming up with TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you are "not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture", I don't see why you should prevent nomination. I fixed all the problems from the talk page, but maybe you didn't notice that because you were not participating in those discussions for some reason. I asked you what parts of the article you disagreed with on my own talk page, but you never said anything. You can block a nomination because there is a problem with an article, but you can't block a nomination because you, who isn't even "a contributor", want some sort of vague "consensus". If you know of any specific problems, tell me what sentences you object to, and I'll deal with it. If you assume good faith, I'll work with you and other editors, but you can't keep edit warring without being "a contributor" to the discussion. Remember that IJethrobot never accused me of disruption. Actually, he said the exact opposite and he expressed concern that you were exercising a degree of page ownership over various other articles.TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think regardless of the tags, the article needs to free of POV issue before it goes to GAN, if only to assure the integrity of the process, because a GAN reviewer is not likely going to know the field well enough to detect them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• CurlyTurkey just said "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". Is that the reason why he won't tell me what his problem with the article is? Apparently, he won't tell me because he hasn't even looked into the article content yet. CurlyTurkey should think up a reason for preventing nomination before preventing nomination, not the other way around.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Notice the game TH1980's playing here—a behavioural pattern. Notice how he never acknowledges—let alone addresses—the fact the he makes not even the slightest pretence of finding out if there's anything like a consensus for the nomination on the page. Expect him to continue playing this game—this won't be the last nom, and I doubt it'll be the last time he brings it to ANI. More eyes on his editing would be most welcome. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do plan on nominating it again as soon as I deal with any concerns you have with the article's content. You never got consensus to revert the nomination and you haven't posted a single concern about the article's current content on the talk page. Since you haven't yet told me what specific parts of the article you dispute (and you even stated above that you have no knowledge of the article's content), I see no reason why I shouldn't just renominate it right away.TH1980 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And there we have it folks. Could we get a few more people to watchlist the page? Particularly some admins to watch the talk page? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
        • If you don't know enough about the sources to edit the article, I told you that I could make the changes myself if you tell me which sentences currently need changing. You haven't said a word about that. All I want is for you to take a collaborative attitude and discuss things on the talk page rather than just reverting. If you have nothing at all to say on the talk page about the article's content, no one will criticize me for nominating the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
          • This endless WP:IDHT is another part of the game. Enough editors have been driven away out of exasperation from the pages CurtisNaito and TH1980 tagteam on. Look how dead Talk:History of Japan has become. We've all run out of energy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't see how you can be out of energy from doing nothing whatsoever but unilateral reverting without discussion. When I ask you to tell me if you have any problem with the article's current content, and you say nothing, obviously I'm not the one not listening. If this were on the talk page, it might just be a content issue. The reason why it might not be a content issue is because of the lack of willingness by other editors to discuss content or anything else for that matter.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
              • For anyone falling for these word games, take a look at Talk:History of Japan and its numerous archives—a dozen of which are from the last year alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                • As I already linked above, IJethrobot told you that I wasn't being disruptive in that discussion. Are you reverting me only because you think I was being disruptive in a discussion that took place many months ago? You were already told that I never did anything disruptive there.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • You know why you were reverted, and we're all sick to death of these games. As long as you refuse to get consensus you will continue to be reverted. Thanks for drawing more eyes to the problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                    • You are the only one reverting, so how do I get consensus with you when you will not tell me why you oppose the current nomination and will not say anything on the talk page? According to Wikipedia rules, you can revert only if you discuss. I have been discussing the article and dealt with outstanding issues, but you have not been doing that. You cannot revert unilaterally, without consensus, unless you plan on explaining your reasons.TH1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The deletion of talk page comments is definitely wrong and sanctionable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the substance of this dispute, but FWIW Curly Turkey has a history of deleting other peoples' talk page comments if he's angered by them. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Editing others comments is not inherently disallowed, except when the meaning of the original comment is changed WP:TALKO However, I would not recommend editing other peoples comments for any reason. If the comment is bad enough that it needs to be edited, it's bad enough to be outright reverted and the editor warned. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Questions and comments: (A) I'm not familiar with GA nomination procedures. Can someone point me to the relevant guideline or policy which indicates that an article cannot be (re)nominated for GA without some sort of consensus (and where and how that alleged consensus is to be achieved or denied)? (B) In terms of the maintenance tags at the top of the article, CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [24]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [25], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [26], [27]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. (C) If there are problems with the article, what are they? Could those opposing the GA nomination please indicate the problems? (D) I myself would be extremely skeptical about sourcing such an article. Any source which derived from Korea or from anyone of Korean descent would have an obvious COI and be suspect, in my mind. Therefore it would be most important to find unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(A) "If an editor finds and contributes to an article and they believe that it meets the good article criteria, they may nominate the article" "Anyone may nominate an article". Therefore, technically no consensus is required. (B) There is no question that the problems that originally caused the article to be tagged were fully and completely dealt with before the tags were removed. It was only many days after the tags were removed that concerns were raised on the talk page that were unrelated to the original tagging. I and other users dealt with those subsequent concerns, and I waited several weeks after that to make sure no one would raise any further objections. Only then did I renominate. (C) CurlyTurkey has not yet said what objections he has to the article's content. Instead, he said above, "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". (D) There's nothing wrong with including sources from neutral Korean scholars. Excluding all scholars even "of Korean descent" is definitely too extreme. Still, the majority of the sources cited are not written exclusively by people of Korean descent. William Wayne Farris is American and so is C. Melvin Aikens who co-wrote a peer-reviewed article on the subject.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: There is no requirement to find consensus under normal circumstances. TH1980's and CurtisNaito's are not normal circumstances. Here's an abbreviated version of the exasperatingly long story (notice how long it is even when abbreviated):

I used to copyedit CurtisNaito's GANs when I saw them on the GAN listings—he edits Japan-related articles, as do I. Sometimes his articles seemed a little funny: Iwane Matsui, for example, which he brought to FAC with some strange omissions. I AGFed, because he seemed to be doing an awful lot of work for WP:JAPAN.

In August, CurtisNaito, who had never touched the History of Japan article before, made two edits to it and nominated it for GA the same day. It passed a week later with an extraordinarily superficial review. The listing immediately drew a number of editors disputing it. I showed up to copyedit, and didn't really follow the disputes at first. Over the months of dispute that followed, I eventually took a look at the actual sources—and discovered the disputants weren't just being dispuatious. Missing key figures and events, trivial detail in abundance, organizational issues, and the sources cited didn't support the text. In short, the worst hatchet job I'd come across on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, TH1980 mysteriously and suddenly showed up on the page and began removing tags. Discussions on the talk page went nowhere as CurtisNaito tried to drown them in text and TH1980 would interject bizarre non sequiturs to derail them. Attempts to fix the article were blocked with the excuse that it was already a GA, so hands off! It was taken to GAR, and after 15kB more of this endless nonsense was finally delisted—and CurtisNaito relisted it twelve minutes later, and an edit war ensued. This happened more than one, sometimes with TH1980 participating in the edit warring, with bizarre comments like GA is a valid topic to discuss, (in an edit where he adds the GAN but does not discuss anything) and then responds to an actual discussion "We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll." These are typical of the mind games TH1980 has played throughout the dispute. Here's an example of CurtisNaito sneaking in the GAN banner under the guise of adding a comment—notice a pattern? They've both GANed the "Korean influence ..." article in similar sneaky ways. A result is that these pair are now required to seek consensus on the talk page before nominating articles they know are disputed. Of course, they never do, and continue to try to nominate these article on the sly.

Then these disputes continued endlessly on the History of Japan talk page, editor after editor eventually giving up under CurtisNaito and TH1980's war of attrition. The discussions eventually came to an end around Christmas, and the article remains a mess that this pair refuses to allow to be improved. They've turned to Korean influence on Japanese culture, an article with far fewer editors watchlisting it. It is an extremely politicized topic, and it has been pointed out that some of the sources are by nationalists. Disputes ensued (I wasn't involved) and some of these sources were removed. User:I JethroBT told the pair "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months later, CurtisNaito suddenly declared to TH1980 that the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations ... which were already part of previous versions of the article" (meaning the disputed citations that were removed).

This is an explicit declaration of Bad Faith. I've brought it up already, too—why do so many of the commenters here refuse to address it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a standing order or sanction or some such similar that states that TH1980 and CurtisNaito must seek consensus before nominating for GA? This is just an immediate question I have, I will take a look at these articles, edits and talk pages. Will reply sometime later today. For the time being, perhaps both parties are at least somewhat guilty in the ABF department. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

An official ANI-style sanction? No. This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page. Consensus doesn't require official sanctions. Please keep in mind the disruption these two caused by getting the History of Japan article GA-ed, using the certification to block improvements to the article—this is not a trivial issue, which is why consensus to nom is critical. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I'll be looking at the pages for History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture, specifically I'll try to review the history and talk pages and come to better grips with the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

My first impression is, both talk pages are just walls of text, currently on Korean influence on Japanese culture I notice that three editors are continuously in dispute over the quality and validity of sources. I think, it may be useful to get the third person's opinion here (the other two are already here), @Nishidani: would you care to comment on this thread about the issue? as you seem to be a recently involved party. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Others involved in that page's disputes with CurtisNaito and TH1980 are Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, and Hijiri88, though Hijiri88 won't be able to comment here as he and TH1980 have an interaction ban. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page." Can you provide the link to that consensus? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [28] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely beautiful, Mr rnddude, and I want ot have your babies. There are so many threads on so many different forums about this stuff that it's impossible to remember where all this is anymore. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That applies to a completely different article (and a different editor). I would like to see the consensus that Curly Turkey referred to regarding Korean influence on Japanese culture by "the other contributors to the page". Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the same behaviour by the same two editors on a closely related and similarly highly disputed article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, there is no "consensus among the other contributors to the page" that Korean influence on Japanese culture cannot be (re)nominated for GA without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: in other words, you have no qualms allowing such meatpuppetry to become a precedent? IJethroBT was explicit that "Both editors are well aware of how contentious [the History of Japan renomination is", and that applies to the closely-related "Korean influence" article which is disputed for the same severe sourcing issues. The bad faith and obfuscation on the part of both editors has been established, and the reasons for the nomination have been laid clear—to obstruct. We're dealing with a serious ongoing problem here, and your response is WikiLawyering. Will you take responsibility for the damage? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the feeling we'll have one on this thread if the people that have been pinged have the time (or will) to reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be worth glancing at as well, its indicative of the sort of issues on the page. [29] Mr rnddude (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no one except CurlyTurkey has ever told me, in any manner, that I need "consensus" before nominating the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, or for that manner any article, for good article status. CurlyTurkey cannot provide any diff that would show any other user telling me this, because that never happened. Even so, I'm absolutely willing to seek a consensus with CurlyTurkey on this matter. What I need to know is how I can reach a consensus with him when he has never stated anywhere on the talk page what his objections to the current text of the article are. My main goal in being here is to convince CurlyTurkey to tell me what he objects to about the content of the article so that I can deal with it before nominating. He still hasn't said anything. As CurlyTurkey points out, I did edit the article History of Japan, but I was not the one who nominated it for good article status. CurlyTurkey seems to mistakenly believe that my edits to that article were disruptive, but the admin IJethrobot explicitly told CurlyTurkey that my edits there were not disruptive. Another user says that CurlyTurkey has a history of deleting the talk page comments of people he is angry at.[30] Either CurlyTurkey is keeping his objections to the article a carefully-guarded secret, or else maybe he is just deleting the nomination because he doesn't like me personally.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any. Here [31] he eloquently laid out some serious concerns, which he can repeat during the GA discussions, if they happen. Or, he can post those concerns preemptively on the article's talk page right now. I personally have no opinion on the merits of this article, although Curly Turkey's statements there are indeed worrisome, especially when noted alongside TH1980 and CurtisNaito's repeated removal of maintenance tags with diversionary misleading edit summaries, and I agree that sourcing such an article must be done very very carefully to avoid Korean-COI POV. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm open to having a discussion concerning the article. I think all editors can participate and lay down any remaining problems that they have with the article. Remember that I didn't try to nominate the article until weeks after I had dealt with all outstanding concerns on the talk page. Once discussion restarts, I will not nominate again until I or another user has edited away any remaining trouble points. A talk page discussion with CurlyTurkey and all other users was all I was asking for anyway, and if all users agree that we should discuss the supposed problems with the article, then this thread can be closed.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to having a discussion—then open one, as you've been told countless times. But we know from experience that will never happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

SoftLavender said, "If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions". I agree, and I don't think you've done that yet. Also, Mrrnddude seemed to indicate, I think, that one possible option to solve the problem is "The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails." I didn't nominate the Korean influence article until weeks after talk page discussion had reached its conclusion, so I wasn't trying to obstruct anything. I'm willing open a new discussion if you participate and tell me what you would like to see changed in the article. This thread could potentially cause discussion to restart on the article talk page involving all users, and I'm okay with that. A number of other users have confirmed that consensus is NOT necessary to nominate the article, so I don't think you were correct to delete the nomination, but I'm willing to talk about any outstanding issues at this point. Sometimes solutions to AN/I threads can be complex, but most of the eventual solutions do involve assuming good faith and discussing things. This is Wikipedia, and for better or worse, those two things are pretty much mandatory.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion. The person who wants to have a discussion, or insists on having a discussion, is the one who should open it. There is no requirement that a GAN be pre-discussed. Discussion happens as a matter of course in a GAN. If someone wants to re-nominate the article for GA, they are free to do so at any time. If someone wants to forestall that, the way to do that is to bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion—CurtisNaito is, as you're aware. Again, you're WikiLawyering. Now why are you avoiding addressing the actual issues? This thread being part of it—the whole situation's a setup on TH1980's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the article issues is the article's talk page. The place to discuss behavioral issues is in an ANI thread with abundant substantiating diffs (or an ArbCom request, if it has gone that far). What other issues do you want addressed, or what outcome are you expecting/wanting from this current ANI thread? Could you be specific? CurtisNaito and TH1980 topic-banned from Japan-related articles? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from tag-teaming/co-editing? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from GANs without prior article-talk-page consensus? (Or some other sanctions against poorly sourced editing?) Since we haven't yet heard from any of the other editors to this article, it's hard to make those calls based solely on your evidence here. That's why I suggest a dedicated ANI thread that all parties who have experience with these two editors can participate in and bring evidence to. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: While I'd love to see them both topic-banned from Japan-related articles, all I've asked for here is that they both abide by the standing requirement that if they intend to nom any of these highly contentious articles for GA, they post about it beforehand on the article's talk page and ensure there is consensus that the issues have been dealt with. I'd hardly call that burdensome. Why would they refuse if they are acting in good faith? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "the standing requirement". No one but you ever said that I needed consensus to nominate this article, and you only just told me this month. Still, I'm willing to get consensus, but only if those who disagree with the nomination do what SoftLavender says and "bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page". That's the key. Those who disagree need to list specific objections that we can discuss and that we can fix. I think that once a majority of respondents approve nomination, that should be consensus.TH1980 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All right. I'd like to see Wehwalt review that proposal and post his opinion, possibly also closing this thread in the process unless there is more business to attend to. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender: I need to point out—again, since people are ignoring this—how many editors have engaged with these two at History of Japan and who don't even bother to respond to pings any more, so effectively have CurtisNaito and TH1980 worn them out. A dozen archives in less than six months (mostly August to December). Attrition is a serious problem with these two, and a serious problem with getting them dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on that, and I've had experience in similar situations with editors who lock down a specific topic POV and wear everyone else out so that the landscape is clear for them to dominate. That's why an ArbCom may eventually be in order, if you can motivate the troops. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately I see this going two ways, 1. the arguments stay on here and somebody gets a block or better yet no-consensus or 2. The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails. That or wait for some responses, I went through as much talk and archives as I could, its impossible to sift through. The only people who could reliably comment on this are those that were there. As for a potential GA nomination, I agree with the above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither (1) nor (2) solve the problem. We've made numerous calls for someone to step in, but nobody has the balls. This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up. There is no way at all! And that's the point—CurtisNaito and TH1980's modus operandi is to keep these disputes so long, buried in so many archives and across so many forums, that nobody can seriously wade through it and deal with the real problem—which is CurtisNaito and TH1980 and their execrable hatchet jobs on Japan-related articles. It's too hard to see through the mess, and too easy to block a 3RR violation or someone saying "fuck". It's gone on for years now—how many more to come? How many people have to get blocked or IBANned or TBANned over standing up to these two editors' relentless shenanigans? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel there are enormous and site-wide problems with Curitsnaito's and TH1980's behavior, then I think the appropriate forum for that would be a dedicated ANI thread (not this one) with numerous specific diffs that make your case. Or ArbCom, but it should probably be at ANI first. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: Another one? Very drôle. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• At this stage, I say block Curly Turkey if the GA review is removed again. I'm sorry, I don't see any indication that the request is in any being done to be disruptive or to make a WP:POINT so as of this point, someone has requested a review, so have a review and move on. I have zero idea in this long-winded discussion why Curly is opposed to another party reviewing the article but so be it. It's not like there's a dispute about the person doing the review, just the idea of a review. It seems like Curley is opposed to the state of the article, which is fine, but without a single discussion on the talk page about what is the problem with it, this to me is no different than someone posting a POV tag on the page and refusing to state what the actual concerns are. If the article is really in such poor shape, then a GA review should fail but at the very least, it won't be the same editors bickering over it. If we conduct a review, Curley still refuses to tell anyone what the actual issues are, a reviewer passes the article, can Curley then continue to be disruptive over the state of the article and refuse to state the actual concerns? What is we move towards a FA review? Will we continue this routine? It's not that difficult: if you have a problem with something, explain it and convince others. If you can't or won't do that, too bad, it's not our jobs to read your mind. Ranting that a group of others are ruining things without providing any concrete information about what the problem is is a fast way to get yourself topic banned. Besides, any article that isn't inherently stable is going to fail a GA review fairly quick so -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In other words, you ignored every word of this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I got it. You think people are doing something wrong. You haven't explained what it is nor do you have the consensus to get those editors topic banned and rather than either doing the necessary discussion to get your point across, you're pouting and edit warring and playing passive-aggressive games that resolve nothing. The talk page shows a lot of disputes but there is currently no IBAN or TBAN or whatever in place and you still won't just come out and explicitly tell anyone else the problems. So in terms of us moving on, either we will sit here going in circles with you pouting and complaining about what or even who really, I can't tell, or someone can make a request for a GA review, and other parties can review this one article while the rest of us deal with the remaining five million pages here. Again, it is YOUR responsibility to explain what your issues are: we are not psychic nor do I plan on responding to your "hide-the-ball" routine about what issue you have. I honestly could not care less about getting into whatever drama you want to engage in here but the fact that in this lengthy stupid discussion, I can't find a single concrete reason why your opposition to a review should trump someone else wanting to do it. I don't even know if you just think the article is not GA quality at which point the easier solution is to just start the review yourself or let it go. Clearly, you are more interested in stopping other people than actually achieving something here and for that, I suggest everyone else ignore whatever grudge you have and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If I may, Ricky, I originally thought exactly the same thing, and had so stated in so many words up above. Then I went back and closely read all of CT's posts in this thread which were not of the snipey type (the snipeyness and the like are CT's downfall), and found that his core points make abundant sense (even Wehwalt agrees with that), and are extremely worrisome. Even though ideally there should be an official ArbCom or ANI ruling to point to such a restriction on CurtisNaito and TH1980 re: this article, there isn't one other than the combined evidence that has been presented by CT and others in this thread and by other ArbComs and ANI threads (some of which are linked or mentioned here). It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus. That's why I'd like to hear from Wehwalt on this matter. Yes, CT was out-of-process in his GAN removals, but it may have served the higher good. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to propose an IBAN or a TBAN or whatever, then propose that. Do it in a separate section and be concise and to the point, instead of making out an argument routine about whether you need a consensus to start a GAN. Still, I don't see a simple: "this is a problem because of diff X" that cuts through the pages of text here. Until then, I presume that the GAN request was in good faith. Is there evidence that the GAN is some sort of POINT violation or something screwy? Are others here opposed to a GAN review on that article? If so, why? Give me an explanation that can't be defeated simply by "let the review go and oppose it at the review." Otherwise, deal with that issue separately, by as stated explicitly making a separate AN or ANI or ARBCOM post about the matter. If people want to debate the standards for creating a GAN review, take that to WT:GAN or whatever as that is not for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if literally no one else will deal with the problem, there are two possibilities here: either it literally is the most insurmountable problem ever seen in the history of this project, one that that is so complicated on such a giant topic involving so many different editors that it simply cannot be explained to mere admins or even arbitrators or regardless of your disagreements, there is no problem here. In this entire mess of a discussion, I see someone express a desire to get someone else topic banned and where the response has been "create an ANI discussion or take it to ARBCOM" and it seems like the response is "I don't want to do all that so this is how I'm objecting." Does that sum up where we are right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All I can say is, unless you have read every single post and link on this thread very carefully, I don't think you have a grasp of the situation or how it cannot be solved by "a simple: 'this is a problem because of diff X'" or by assuming that the GA renom was simply in good faith. That's why I'd like Wehwalt (who is currently asleep/offline) to weigh in. I understand your attitude of 'I shouldn't have to read 150,000 bytes of text to understand this', but unfortunately I think you do. Anyway, I'm probably not going to repeat myself further or reply further; I will await Wehwalt. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Softlavender, I went through so many archives and talk pages. Discussions with these two editors is always a shitshow. The proposal is a little bit outside of norm but I understand where its coming from. Read everything and I believe you will too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. When people can't distill their points down to a concise manner, it's largely a matter of effort. Ten to one if someone took this to ABRCOM and had to make the 500 word limited summary, they would be able to do it but no one is even trying here since there's requirement to do so. It's not that hard to link to five discussions that are going in circles rather than actual diffs to show us the Gish gallop routine if that's the problem. If even the IP dispute can be brought to ARBCOM with people following the specific word limitations and providing accurate summaries, this topic certainly can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I hardly ever participate in ANI threads, but the solution here seems simple. CT, opposed the nomination because of no consensus, then start a 7 day thread on the article's talk page, and if there is no opposition, or there is a reasonable consensus act on. CT was wrong to persistently revert, and TH1980 could have better handled the situation by starting a simple 7 day discussion on the talk page simply to appease the concerns of Mr. Turkey, and this whole discussion could have been avoided. If I'm missing something, I apologize, but this thread is turning into a wall of text going in circles.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text maybe, but a wall of text with vital information about a very complex, wide-ranging, and longstanding problem. Have you read the entire thread and also the links provided to other discussions? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have and it's a rather large amount to take in. But I still feel, going back to the original reason this post happened to begin with, if it were me, I would've opened a thread on the article talk page asking the other editors if it should be nominated. That would've only helped the nomination, because if it was nominated as a result of a discussion, it would have shown the article to be decently stable. Then again, I'm no content contributor and I gain my experience from lurking around various places. I just thought I would offer my opinion on the matter.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• It would also be instructive to hear what BenLinus1214 aka Johanna has to say about the situation on this article, considering they rejected the last GA attempt 2.5 weeks a year ago with this summary: Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture/GA1. Especially given the fact that all of those maintenance tags were removed from the article surreptitiously, with false edit summaries, by CurtisNaito and TH1980. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC); corrected 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't receive the ping earlier for some reason. I haven't been editing much recently, but even so, if I was going to be discussed this much, maybe I should have been notified on my talk page instead.

Softlavender, I don't believe that I removed tags improperly. I removed the tag mentioning art because my very next edit was a rewrite of the section on art with the edit summary "art". I must have done a good job editing it, because even though concerns were raised about parts of the article later, none of it related to the section on art. When I did remove the POV tag, I used the edit summary "It might be better to tag just the specific section you are concerned about. The large majority of this has never been objected to." Although I discussed the matter with Curly Turkey on my talk page [32], Curly Turkey did not give a reason for tagging the article and did not argue against it in the talk page. It seems to me that I removed the tags in an open and proper manner. Also, note that the article was last nominated one year and 2.5 weeks ago.

However, a lot of the diffs above relate to events before 2016, almost all of which were presented as evidence in the aforementioned arbcom case. They may be misbehavior, but those diffs were already investigated and judged months ago.

And concerning that issue, I think Curly Turkey is still showing some hyperbole relating to my edits. I'm not a bad editor, as the users who have reviewed the good articles I nominated can attest. Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question" Is Nishidani really that horrible of an editor, completely unable to read sources or edit in a competent and sincere manner? Actually, it seems like Curly Turkey gets more than a little carried away in heated discussions with the people he argues with.

Though I was not involved in the recent edit warring, naturally I supported nomination. I have nominated numerous good level articles, and when I noticed that TH1980 had been heavily editing the Korean influence on Japanese culture article while I was inactive, I told him he should consider fixing the article's remaining problems and nominate it. I never suggested to him that he add in any sources that (at the time) were described on the talk page as being controversial. From the talk page, we see that TH1980 was able to correct a number of important errors Nishidani made.[33][34] I'm sure each of them corrected each other on occasion. I noticed that Nishidani was warned by an admin about potentially driving users off the article because of his rude comments, but it seems like the two of them still managed to work together. TH1980 often pointed out in the talk page that the wording he used matched the preferred wording of the sources, which mostly were peer reviewed articles and academic books.

Various users have put forward various solutions to the current problem of when to re-nominate the article. Though consensus may not be required, it's obvious that if new complaints turn up they should be discussed either during or prior to any good article review. If discussion begins again on the talk page of the article in question, I'm sure I'll eventually get around to expressing my own view. TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries, so what was needed was indeed discussion. Nishidani himself stated below that very frequently my role in the article's talk page was to step "in to find a compromise". There were many occasions on the talk page where I proposed requests for comment and other such measures, so maybe we need to move in that direction.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries." TH1980 renominated the article 2 weeks after Johanna rejected the first nomination. And none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[35][36] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now you meant that the first nomination was in 2015; I had failed to notice the year date. However my point still stands that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. If you disagree with this, I invite you to read the entire talk page and its entire archives, as well as Nishidani's post below. on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of Nishidani's posts were disputing the reliability of "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", a peer-reviewed academic article written by a team of leading scholars, including a prominent American historian. I offered to bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard just to be sure it really was a good source,[37] but I never received a response. As was pointed out by three users in the talk page, Nishidani is a researcher but as a result has some tendency to lean towards original research. The academic article Nishidani disputed is at least not original research, but it could be original research to create, as Nishidani did, an entire paragraph, in an article on "Korean influence on Japanese culture", and cite it entirely to the Nihon Shoki, an eighth century work of history.[38] I appreciate that I could discuss things with Nishidani, but it is through discussion that we can identify and eliminate original research like this. I still think that re-nomination is fine as long as the current issues on the talk page are responded to and edited. TH1980 did not nominate until he had done that.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As to this, I cited a primary source, almost word for word. That is not original research. When requested, I gave a secondary source. Nothing in that breaks the rules. The so-called peer reviewed source used to write a third of the article was co-authored by Sung-rak Choi, affiliated (what's that mean in terms of academic status?) with the Department of Archaeology, Mokpo National University, a department that seems to have near zero attendance, and one lecturer, not him. just as the other chap, Hyuk-jin Ro is affiliated with the Department of History, Hallym University, a small private university in Korea. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't take a passage from such an old history book and interpret it as being "Korean influence on Japanese culture". Wikipedia discourages the use of such old works in general, but we can't necessarily say that the authors of the Nihon Shoki intended that passage to demonstrate a Korean influence on Japanese culture. That might simply be a modern interpretation. I found it odd that you think the Nihon Shoki is a good source to cite in the article, but not a peer reviewed academic article specifically on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Also, I did offer to take the academic article to the reliable sources noticeboard, and we could have discussed the matter at greater length on the talk page. This article has a lot of strengths including co-authorship by numerous academics (you haven't questioned the two working at the University of Oregon), extensive citations to scholarly works, and research done at major museums in both Japan and Korea. Even if you disagree with its opinions, I suspect its acceptability as a source would stand at the reliable sources noticeboard, probably a lot better than the Nihon Shoki would.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple English lesson. 'Old history books' has two primary meanings. (a) an outdated secondary source in history (b) a primary source (Herodotus, the Bible,Sima Qian, Livy, Primary Chronicle). You are using (b) in the sense of (a) and haven't understood WP:PRIMARY, since I made no interpretation. Making a more extended comment than this will only generate the humongously silly threads your failure to understand these matters invariably generate.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia also discourages primary sources, if you prefer to call it that. The very fact that you put it on an article called Korean influence on Japanese culture means that you interpreted that passage as an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. Perhaps it is, but to be safe it's better to just use modern scholarship about Korean influence on Japanese culture rather than culling obscure passages from ancient works and assuming ourselves that these passages were intended to prove Korean influence on Japanese culture.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources, it discourages incorrect use of primary sources. Incorrect primarily meaning interpretation, don't interpret the meaning of a primary source. Where secondary sources are available then it is best to use them provided that they are Reliable. The very fact that it's on the article by no means means that there is interpretation going on. If a source says something and you quote it, there is, by its very definition, no interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "primary source" would be irrelevant unless it was on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I would be wary of declaring the passage in question to be necessarily about Korea influencing Japan. In this case, it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. I think that we should be able to agree that a peer reviewed academic article published in 2007 is a superior source to base a whole section off of than a history book from the eighth century.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Curtis. The above only shows why you also have a behavioural problem. The obvious takes paragraphs + to get through to you, even with policy. When you raised this issue, you said: I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source. Translation? You don't understand what a primary source is (a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.) There is no shadow of a doubt that the Nihon Shoki fits this exactly. It is the primary literary record of the early history of Korean peninsular relations with Yamato. Once more your trivial, ignorant hairsplitting here is evidence of how this game of quibbling attrition is played on those and similar pages. Eventually this willful obtusity to the obvious on talk pages, which has driven off several editors, will have to be reviewed administratively. If CN can harp on his doubts even in the face of facts and straightforward policy, I leave it to all to imagine what happens when one must explain to him the intricacies of ancient history and its interpretations, esp. since he knows nothing of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Large passage? it's one bloody sentence how is that a large passage. Can you link me to the source you are supporting CurtisNaito, I'd like to take a look at it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [39]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980 put the source in immediately after he said he would.

Most of the history covered in the Nihon Shoki was not written contemporary to the events that had occurred. The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events. I favor the journal article Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan. I do think it's a double standard to use the Nihon Shoki as the sole source for an entire section, but disparage a recent peer reviewed article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events.

The 4th proof in a few exchanges you don't understand what you are talking about. Prince Toneri, the editor of the primary text that is the Nihon Shoki, was a contemporary of the Empress Jitō whose reign is covered by that work. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're probably aware that Prince Toneri, who was born in 676, was not a contemporary of most of the historical figures portrayed in the book and could not have met Maketsu personally.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are totally unaware that Livy, Sima Qian, the Tanakh, Herodotus, Thucidides, etc.etc.etc. are all primary sources, like the Nihon Shoki, and are regularly quoted on early Roman history, the Zhou Dynasty. the history of early Israel, and the Ionian Revolt, all things that occurred up to a 1,000 years before the birth of those primary source authors. My practice is always to quote them, unlike most good wiki editors, through secondary sources, unless the datum is quoted verbatim, as I did from the primary source here. You don't know the subject, you don't understand the elementary rules on primary sourcing, so drop the obtusity.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, we should just use Wikipedia's definitions. Wikipedia defines primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." You can't deny that this does NOT describe the Nihon Shoki as you cited it. Prince Toneri was not "close to" the events of, say, Shotoku's regency (or Maketsu's arrival in Japan) and certainly was not directly involved it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence why you should be banned from editing these articles, for intransigent hair-splitting to dispute the obvious and challenge the universal consensus of scholarship, which, if if isn't just dumb, looks like a tactic of attrition.Since this is Wikipedia, we should read the whole policy page, and not spin one part for the whole, i.e. 'Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later.' All modern scholarship on Japan classifies the Nihon Shoki as a primary source: here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. So much for your vaunted preference for ‘modern scholarship’.

This persistently willful obtuseness to make a point should be sanctionable, and I leave this for anyone to bookmark for an occasion when CN’s longterm behaviour on these articles calls for serious administrative review.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of those sources you just cited are referring to the Nihon Shoki as the main source of information on ancient Japanese history. "Azumamaro established a reputation as an authority of the Nihon Shoki which for him served as the primary source on ancient history". If it was only "the primary source for him", it means that it was the main source he was using, not a "primary source" in scholarly terms. You are far more likely to see the Nihon Shoki described as a historical text or an ancient history book than as a primary source. According to "Traditional Japanese Literature" by Haruo Shirane, "The Nihon Shoki draws on numerous sources, including Chinese dynastic histories, records compiled by Korean immigrants to Japan, histories of temples (engi), and various local clan histories." In scholarly terms, a primary source should be the original. If a book is researched by consulting earlier sources, as the Nihon Shoki was according to Haruo Shirane, it is likely a secondary source. That's why Wikipedia says that secondary sources are "one step removed from an event."CurtisNaito (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Digging yourself deeper into the hole you made. (a) WP:Secondary source

if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, (a) that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source, (b) but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".

This means per wiki policy that the Nihon Shoki, as all scholarship confirms, is a primary source.

Even if you accept Shirane, then my citing the Nihon Shoki would be citation from one of the 2 fundamental secondary sources (which it isn't per the scholarly consensus) for ancient Japan. And thus your original objection is self-invalidated. In either case you are wrong. In both cases, you are demonstrating your ignorance of policy and the status of these works in Japanese scholarship Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that there are varying definitions of primary sources, but I had thought that on Wikipedia it was fine to use Wikipedia's in-house definitions: the ones from the policy page. Many of the Nihon Shoki's sources are still extant, like the Wei Zhi, which is directly quoted in the Nihon Shoki[40], and many temple records including Gangoji Engi[41]. Obviously the Nihon Shoki is far more than "one step removed from" most of the events it describes. As you know, the point I was trying to make earlier is that we should discourage using the Nihon Shoki alone as a source for entire sections. No matter how we classify it, I think we should realize that the Nihon Shoki's information is not always reliable. If you still insist that the Nihon Shoki is reasonable as the sole source of information for a paragraph of potentially controversial material, you can have that view, but maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No one used the Nihon Shoki for 'entire sections' or even a 'paragraph', that is, again, a fairy-floss fantasy spun out of nothing. I cited it for one sentence on sewing. (b) Since you believe the Nihon Shoki, against all the scholarship, is a Secondary Source, you should have simply challenged it as a secondary source, rather than challenging it as a primary source. No one in his right mind, with a knowledge of the hopic would discuss such details on that talk page any more. It is a numbers game controlled by two editors, who write what they want to write, regardless of objections, and that is why it probably won't get GA approval.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source" is because I assumed that, if the Nihon Shoki were construed as a primary source, then the section would be reverted outright. I have been warned in the past to never use primary sources in any articles, though maybe the rules have changed since then or maybe it was always an informal rule. Because of my tendency to compromise, I wanted to hold out the possibility of retaining the material rather than just reverting it. I was told in my early days, "we avoid primary sources". If the Nihon Shoki were a secondary source, as it definitely is if we use Wikipedia's in-house rules, then it would seem more acceptable as a source. My personal opinion is that the Nihon Shoki is not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section, but that's just my opinion and I wanted to stimulate discussion rather than force my opinion on you.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the reason why we are having this absurd discussion is that you ignored taking the tip from 15 modern academic sources, which overwhelmingly list the Nihon Shoki as a Primary Source. Only someone who has no frequentation with classical Japanese scholarship could ever doubt the obvious, and quibble on those testimonies, as you then did. That, and the fact that you didn't know what WP:Secondary sources states, explains why we have this tedious negotiation. It's even worse on that talk page. When wrong, admit it. It's simpler all round. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Except its not an entire section. It is one sentence. Stop referring to it as a paragraph or an entire section. This sort of misrepresentation is what annoys other editors most. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the section entitled "sewing". Do you not call that a section?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes its a section, with one sentence. Here's your comment -> "not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section" that section is one sentence. Is the source reliable enough for one sentence? Yes actually it is. So what exactly do you want done here? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I was not deliberately misrepresenting. I had believed that each titled portion of a Wikipedia article was called a "section". According to Wikipedia, a paragraph means a "self-contained unit of a discourse in writing". I had thought that an independent "section" dealing with sewing constituted a "paragraph", but I suppose that the word paragraph can be defined in other ways. I feel that not responding to content-based complaints would be rude of me, but what I really want is what I said right above. "Maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here."CurtisNaito (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't 'deliberately misrepresent'. You're certainly confused, and disconcertingly change tack endlessly in this infinite pettifogging. You've rephrased defensively as usual your gross distortion that started this nonsense. You origionally wrote of my one short sentence that it broke wiki policy on 'large passages based on primary sources (which you deny however was a primary source!:

it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. 19:08, 28 June 2016

This style of backtracking without giving an inch is what we have to supposedly negotiate with assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I showed, there's simply no way to define the Nihon Shoki as a primary source according to Wikipedia's rules and, though you denied my description of it as a "history book", if you want I can give you far more than 15 sources describing the Nihon Shoki as a "history book". In order to not step on Wikipedia's rules, I would personally rather call it a history book, as do many scholars. However, on this issue, like many others, I'm always modifying my stance in accordance with the stances of other editors. My stance isn't fixed, because that makes compromise more difficult. It's not that my personal viewpoint "changes tack", it's that I'm willing to put aside my differences with others for the sake of a compromise. For instance, I personally believe that the Nihon Shoki is not a primary source, but in my comments I merely said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source", because I was holding out the possibility that it was a primary source. I have my opinion, but I don't like to force it on others. I would rather be deliberately vague and guide the discussion to a mid-way compromise.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just take my above words at face value. Opinions vary, sources vary, but usually there's ground for compromise somewhere in the middle. I hope we can discuss this matter further on article talk pages if there is need. I'll listen to your views, and I will not unequivocally call the Nihon Shoki a "history book" again. That's only my opinion and the opinion of certain other scholars. I promise to not impose that opinion on any articles one-sidedly.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A history book, doesn't necessarily mean an old book, it can also mean a book about history. Many secondary sources are called history books because they are books about history. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's a more reasonable request. Paragraphs are generally 4-6 sentences in length but can be smaller, one relatively small sentence won't be considered a paragraph even by technicality. It is generally preferred that content discussion stay on the article's talk page. So yes please, take those discussions there by all means. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think part of the reason TH1980 started this thread in the first place was what he perceived to be absence of talk page discussion. It seems like reverting without discussion was one factor leading to this dispute, and maybe all users need to be enouraged to use the talk pages more readily to explain their ideas in detail. Wikipedia says, "A paragraph consists of one or more sentences", but your above comments on paragraph size are something we can discuss on that article's talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Did he? I see that he put it in the references section but didn't actually use it for the citation in question. A remarkably convenient omission don't you think? Thank you for linking me the article, I will take a look at it shortly. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[42] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies, the format is a little different on the citation then in the references. Due to the lack of date and name for the source. I didn't recognize that they were the one and the same. As a side note, what in particular would you like to be included from the source you linked me for the sewing section?

No, I only meant that I found it odd that such an old text was being cited as a reliable source for an entire section, while the academic article was not treated as a high quality source. Concerning the Nihon Shoki, both TH1980 and myself expressed some concern that Nishidani was extensively analyzing the Nihon Shoki and another ancient source to refute the academic article in question. I don't think that the reliability of a peer reviewed paper should be questioned based on a Wikipedia user's analysis of an ancient text like the Nihon Shoki. My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

'My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.' Thanks for giving me a laugh. I like to end the evening with the stimulation of a fantasy, preferably someone else's. Guess who added most of the modern scholarship on that page. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I cannot comment on the reliability of sources dealing with the article in question. The issue that Nishidani, if I have understood, seems to be addressing is that the source you have provided isn't credible for biased POV issues. That is something that the editors who are working on the article need to sort out themselves. Somebody should open an RfC with their version and the competing version and hope to collaborative productively from there on. That said, Nishidani does not appear to be the average Wikipedia user, but, a published academic in this field. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this again, and then I'm going to stop, because I feel you are changing the subject and giving a run-around, instead of addressing the point (I'm guessing this is one of your behaviors that CT and others have referred to). You claimed above that TH1980 did not renominate until he had responded to all talk page queries. The truth is that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved. This can plainly be seen by anybody who reads the talk page and its archives, and now also Nishidani's post below on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess my point was that TH1980 did not see the peer-reviewed academic source as a problem, and while I didn't either, I wanted to find a solution that might settle the matter. However, when Nishidani did not respond for weeks, I think TH1980 just went with the existing consensus because many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which, TH1980 and I noted, was somewhat dubious as article content. If this issue arises again, the reliable sources noticeboard or request for comment are maybe the only solutions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal attack insofar as it, as is usual, completely screws up my work here and the editor in question had the hide to misrepresent me as agreeing with him.

many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which he and I, noted was somewhat dubious as article content.

Naito. Give me diffs, or, if you can't, strike that crap out.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While I know the basics on Japan/Korea history, it's not my field and I don't want to opine on the article because I know an expert could lead me around with subtle POV I wouldn't get. And I feel I expressed an opinion when I said I was satisfied with CurlyTurkeys explanation, so I don't feel I should close this. Appreciate the confidence though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Responding to User:Mr rnddude's request.

• WP:COI.I am published on this topic, in a peer-reviewed academic press. My identity as such is known to several here, including an admin with a professorial chair.I am critical of nationalistic cant, esp. when it infects scholarship, not only regarding this culture area.
• I agree with Curly Turkey on this. There is no conflict there. We had a vigorous disagreement on one of these pages, that turned nasty once. We sorted it out. I respect his independence of judgement and care in editing.
• The article would be very important if it was in competent hands. Fixing the persistent POV+pushing spin and clumsy uses of sources by TH1980 and CurtisNaito - my experience with them is that their editing is a nightmare- has been a constant drag on everyone’s time. They shouldn’t be editing the article so deeply entrammeled by competing nationalist claims. Yet they have done nothing that would get a sanction there, except showing an extensive ignorance of early Japanese history, and a persistent desire to document a theory, that it is all Korean, basically. They are very careful to be polite. The iron nescience wraps itself in a velvet glove. Impeccable, with a variant: When TH1980 screws up, CurtisNaito steps in to find a compromise,
• Nothing was either ‘Korean’ or ‘Japanese’ down to the 6th—7th century, when a proto-nationalist strain slowly began. The Korean state was created in 668, the Yamato ‘state’ somewhat earlier. In both we have constant inflows of tribes, cultures, language groups, warring and making alliances with each other alternately, in both the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archepelago. TH1980 is retroactively casting all this intricately polyethnic movement as being ‘Korean’, as do many of the sources (dumb to the nuances of higher scholarship) (s)he cites.
• I’ve been notified from time to time to look at it by several editors, and almost invariably found both their edited content deeply problematic. Neither should be allowed to touch anything dealing with ancient Far eastern history. They know nothing of the scholarship, the sources they use are mediocre, and they consistently misread them.
• The article is in its present shape because (a) edit after edit, TH1980 mainly, screwed up. Editors like myself stepped in, readjusted the text, and replaced the poor sources with page-links to the latest scholarship on every issue. I gave up because I intuited that it doesn’t matter to the POV pushers that they get everything wrong, since, their bid for a GA article is assured: They screw up, and a competent area scholar will fix the damage making it look so much better.
• A third of the sourcing (37/118) comes from just one source: Rhee, Song-Nai, Aikens, C. Melvin, Choi, Sung-Rak, and Ro, Hyuk-Jin, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Asian Perspectives, Fall 2007.
• This passes RS, formally, but the kindest construction on it is that ‘Asian Perspectives’ though that, despite the heavy handed Korean nationalist spin, it did contain numerous citations of recent high quality Japanese and Korean scholarship, and was worth passing solely on those grounds. I have said that it should never be used unless the trouble is taken to verify their spin or claims or arguments, item by item, against the judgements of recent Japanese and Korean scholarship.
• I stated some of the problems on the talk page here. Where I gave one instance of where in just one (of numerous details) these four scholars allow their nationalist POV twisting to alter and distort primary sources. All of the corrections involve technical details that will fly over the heads of the average reader unfortunately. The criticisms I make are consistently ignored by the two editors, perhaps because they can’t grasp them.One could do this for much that is in the source paper written by those 4 scholars. I for one, haven’t the time or inclination to frig about correcting it all, to make it usable for this article.
• All of these issues, and many others, will persist with that page as long as incompetents guide its editing, and GA reviewers are likely to miss the mess because to see the fraudulent spin you must have some solid grasp of Korean and Japanese nationalism, a detailed knowledge of their respective ancient histories, and the fact that nearly all of the ancient historical issues exhibit conflicting currents of interpretation in the relevant scholarship. Everything there is theoretical, not factual, and drenched with potential bias u nless one exercises acute care. One could do better by writing an article The history of interpretations of Korean and Japanese cultural links in modern scholarship, which has an extensive academic literature, and would run to the 100,000kb level at a minimum. As it stands, and as its main editors edit, the article should never been considered worthy of GA review. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop dicking around with other peoples comments here. Unless you are removing a personal attack against yourself, leave them alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an opportunity venue for editors to weigh in with mechanical adversity against an editor whose views they consistently oppose on any or every topic. The proper thing is to ask an editor who with his tagteam mate has driven to exhaustion six other competent editors, to explain his egregious distortions regarding my views. My practice is to use the talk page to convey what the relevant scholarship says. They don't know it, and need to be told in every edit. When I do that drudgery, the response is 'original research', (i.e. 'Duh, I didn't know that.') I don't cite my own views on any article. I cite what the scholarship states in its varied opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for taking the time to respond to my request. From what I gather, there is a significant imbalance of weight being allocated to certain Korean sources. Perhaps the editors in question, or perhaps all editors, should look to try to balance their use of Korean and Japanese sources with some other Western sources as well, or at least, look to make statements that are confirmed by both side, Korean and Japanese, or Korean/Japanese and Western sources. This should ideally prevent all bias and POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, I'm still not seeing anything new here. It looks to me like there was a prior GAN, someone provided a review there, including numerous suggestions. Since then, it's been a year and someone else (or the same person, doesn't matter) wants to conduct another GAN. The original reviewer and others think the prior fixes weren't done, other editors think it was. Some editors think others should be topic banned, others don't or the reverse but the end point here is: there still are not topic bans in place and I still do not see any indication that the GAN request in and of itself is a problem, just a vehement disagreement on whether the article is a GA, which is kind of the point of a GA review. Either way, there should either be continued discussion on the talk page about whether it even passes the first GA requirements suggested or we can start a new GA review and you all can chew out the new reviewer as incompetent to understand the vague suggestions that you all are going on about or you can take on the new reviewer as another review. The first thing any sensible new reviewer is going to ask is if the prior GAN review concerns were addressed so that same issue now stopping a new GAN from starting will be done there. If the new reviewer wants to start anew, so be it, go chew them out for that if you want. Again, if someone wants to suggest a topic ban or an IBAN or whatever, there is little in this discussion seriously addressing that so either start that specific issue or let's just move on to doing a GAN. It would be hard to imagine a GAN passing without the people who find the page problematic actually expressing their views but if they don't express their views beyond vague generalities about Korean and Japanese sourcing, I have no idea what the rest of us are doing here other than waiting until this discussion takes up the whole page, runs out of steam and then goes straight into the archive without any admin action. As if now, I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here and I care only about resolving the GAN issue right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here—Whoa, way to put Mr rnddude and Softlavender in their places! You've contributed nothing but noise, Ricky. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: If you think "vehement disagreement" is something that can or should be resolved by a GA review then you need to look more carefully at the GA criteria, and especially at "quick fail" criterion 4 and GA criterion 5. Being the subject of an ongoing and significant dispute is an immediate disqualifier for GA status. So any GA reviewer could reasonably stop there without taking the time to understand the dispute in more detail. That is, the existence of this dispute ipso facto means that any attempt at a GA nomination would be premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the talkpage I am pretty sure the disagreement would disppear with the forcible exiting of certain editors. What stands out for me are the personal attacks.

"Go away. You are boring and incapable of reading either policy or scholarship. It is quite pointless addressing me, since you cannot understand my replies."

"Because the other editor is, is for me, notoriously incompetent"

"obviously because you don't know anything about Asian, Korean or Japanese history."

"You haven't understood anything."

"you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor"

"You shouldn't be on Wikipedia

"my working hypothesis is that your lazy tossing in of 'stuff' you google up without understanding what its status is in Japanese studies, is meant by now as a prod to get serious editors who actually know the subject professionally, to fix it, and thereby, since you can't write a GA article, get them to do so by fixing your errors with technical precision."

Etc. When you add in the constant use of profanity, it is actually surprising that disagreement has been so civil by the other parties there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

All factual descriptions, and I confirm them. The tactic here is to maintain a perfectly WP:AGF posture while consisting hindering competent editors from doing their work. That's why so many have fucked off. The amount of netspace caused by the intransigent hair-splitting in particular of Curtis Naito, whose knowledge of ancient Japan, and the secondary scholarship, is close to zero and yet who persists in talking past the concrete evidence by waffling, is unbelievable. Anyone who disbelieves this is invited to look at the tortuous negotiations to resolve obvious solutions his presence there demands on numerous pages. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no exceptions to WP:NPA and your opinion of other editors is not a factual description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as to CN's ignorance of the topics he edits is factual. I've documented it on numerous talk pages. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that you and the other editors are getting frustrated because the discussion is going nowhere. However, it is best practice to never comment on an editor, only their work. Please keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All that will happen is that it will cause the original complaint to stall and even backfire. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The whole reason this is here at ANI is because of behavioral problems by the users in question. That is, literally, the primary topic of this discussion. So don't tell us not to discuss it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then what's the solution? It's either (a) a GAN review or (b) no GAN review. We can add blocks or topic bans or whatever else people want but I don't see any specifics other than general bickering and people pointing out that the talk page and its archives are not being productively done. The last review was just a quickfail on the tagging. The tags have been removed. Is the tag removal at issue? If so, then oppose a GAN review and go back and argue about tagging. If not, what are we doing here other than going in circles here with the bickering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Somebody above mentioned that according to GAN policy, a dispute on content should automatically invalidate a GAN. I would not personally recommend the article for GAN until all the content disputes are resolved. Yes, there are multiple simultaneous content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thus putting the article in breach of GA criteria #5. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude: Somebody above mentioned that ...—you don't have to tell Ricky that. He is, after all , the only one who has read through any of this mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I apologize if that came across as an order to not discuss behavioural problems. Some of the comments made by Nishidani above are not acceptable. If I were to pick one specific example it'd be "You shouldn't be on Wikipedia.", the only editors who shouldn't be on Wikipedia are those that WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDAL. What I is was trying to demonstrate is that "Comment on content, not on the contributor." should be a guiding principle when talking to other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think as a whole, Nishidani's comment was that they shouldn't edit that area until they had read up on the material because what they are producing is substandard. Possibly some of the descriptions could be toned down without loss of content, to assure that this discussion doesn't sidetrack.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when does any of that justify NPA? Also, user comments should almost never be modified by another user. As for al the claims, I don't think anything is going to come of any of this because at this point, it is just one large wall of text.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You obviously failed to see that the user's comment which I struck out, was then emended by that editor when challenged to provide a diff, because he realized it falsely attributed to me a view I never espoused. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I've been reading this since day one, I didn't stray in. 2) As for your comment, I am very much opposed to touching someone else's comment. What I would have done is ask him, or coax him to strike or remove himself. If he fails to do so then i would contact an admin to see if that is casting aspersions or something that would warrant you to strike it out yourself. As far as results, this is typical of ANI, once the thread is too large to read, there will be no action other than auto archive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not averse to following advice. But it is rather disconcerting to see that when I struck out an opposing editor's fictional attributions to me of an idea he shared with his pal, there began a fluttering in the dovecotes about me that wholly ignored the justice of my complaint. That I was correct was shown by his subsequent alteration of the text, without any note that he had made the mistake. I don't mind the fine tooth-comb being vigorously applied to my work. I often observe that in a conflict where I have a just complaint, my formulation of it is scrutinized with a microscope for my behavior, while the content issue is ignored. I sigh, stiff chedder, mutter 'fuck me dead' and then, well, have a cuppa and roll myself another smoke, thinking that that's how all of this bullshit written here will end up anyway, like my cremated self one of these days.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I referred to both you and TH1980 in my post, and then much later in the post I made a reference to "He and I". I thought it was clear from the context that "he" meant TH1980. I didn't care that you altered my comment, but if you had instead asked me, "Who is the 'he' you are referring to later in your post?", I would have said TH1980, not you.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the only thing that can, and arguably needs to, come of this is that the editors recognize that GA will have to wait till all content disputes are resolved. I'd rather not see any sanctions imposed on any editors involved unless they irreconcilably demonstrate that they are not here to co-operate to improve Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words: enforce the restriction on CN et al. against nominating without first seeking consensus. We're back to where we started, but I'm sure Ricky's itching to block me if I dare try to enforce this already-established restriction again—so how do we enforce it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to institute that restriction, because it never existed in the first place. Above someone said, "Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any." "CN et al." is a vague statement... In my opinion, the problem was that other users were not willing to discuss the alleged problems with the article on its talk page. Now that discussion has restarted, the problem is solved for now.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You won't lawyer yourself out of this—I JethroBT named "Both editors", and the consensus here is against your pulling this again. The number of people who've seen you at play keeps increasing—do you seriously think you can keep playing these games? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the link, and IJethrobot never said "both editors". You said "both editors" in your comment, but nowhere did the closer of the thread, IJethrobot, say "both editors".TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980, you quoted me (without attribution) just above, but you failed to mention that I later stated "It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus." I will strike my earlier opinion if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User Kashmiri being rude and abusing rights on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_country_calling_codes#Inclusion_of_Northern_Ireland

No action needed, there was no bullying or abuse in that discussion. Cexycy, when you are in a content dispute please refer to reliable sources rather than engaging in original research, and please take heed of reasonable objections to your position without accusing those editors of misbehaviour. Fences&Windows 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This user keeps asking me to support my side of the argument here but then keeps being flippant with my responses. Now this user is accusing me of being a vandal, all while providing nothing substantial to confirm that I am wrong in my argument or that I actually am a vandal. This user is being plain bullying. Cexycy (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. For the last couple of days, Cexycy has been repeatedly adding Northern Ireland as a separate country to the article [43] [44] [45] [46], despite being asked not to, explained on the Talk page, and consistent reverts of his/her edits by Chipmunkdavis and me. He/she has refused to quote a single source in support, and instead keeps pushing pointless arguments (on the Talk page) which can safely be termed as trolling. After long and obviously pointless exchange, I will consider any further engagement with this editor a waste of time. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to state that this is utter nonsense because I HAVE provided information in my defence however they have been totally ridiculed and ignored and now I am being accused of trolling and vandalism. This can ben seen on the above statement and the discussion itself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just because this user does not agree with what I have stated does not make me a vandal or a troll. I have been polite in my argument which cannot be said for this user. Cexycy (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither Wales, Scotland nor even England have their own section on the article, so why would Northern Ireland. Less important but still related to the topic, since when is Northern Ireland a country? I was under the impression that Northern Ireland was a province. For that matter, there is a remarkable difference between "a country within a country" and a dependency. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have already stated Northern Ireland is the only country out of the four main ones to have it's own dialling code and should the UK codes be reorganised in such a way that grants codes specific to England, Wales or Scotland, then they too should then be included. I have also stated that this is not a political issue, otherwise I would agree that Northern Ireland is not an independent state however it is a country and it has it's own dialling code therefore it meets the criteria in a similar vien to the likes of the Crown Dependancies as well as Hong Kong and Macau, which are included. Cexycy (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A comment from a UK based non-administrator: Wow! This is some nonsense. Northern Ireland does not have an international dialing code. 028 is just another UK area code. The only odd thing about it is that the whole of Northern Ireland has that one area code but that does not make it anything other than an unusually large area code geographically. This is a content dispute where Cexycy is manifestly in the wrong and has not brought any references to even try to prove otherwise. The talk page bickering has to stop. Venue shopping by bringing it here does not help either. While this may have started as a good faith misunderstanding, which would bring no dishonour on the mistaken party, Cexycy has ignored requests for references supporting his position (a verifiability issue) and continued to argue from his personal interpretation of the facts (an original research issue) against at least two other editors, not only kashmiri. kashmiri has not even been particularly rude to him. Sure, I sense exasperation, which is understandable although he would be wise to try to keep it in check, but I see nothing nothing that remotely justifies complaining about it here using the term "bullying". Cexycy's behaviour has become disruptive, although not intentionally so, so I would not call it trolling . I think he needs one last chance to drop the stick or maybe risk having it taken away from him in the form of a topic ban. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty much a content dispute unless it spills over into 3RR, but it is worth pointing out that Cexycy is 100% wrong; Northern Ireland (a) isn't a country, and (b) does not have its own international dialling code, it is a fluke of the system that the whole of the province shares the same 028 UK area code. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the stuff that I have been putting down in the talk section and above? Had you have done, you would have seen that I have found sources to confirm that Northern Ireland IS a country, albeit not fully independent but that's not relevant here and yes it does have its code in the same sense as the Crown Dependancies however they are listed just as Hong Kong and Macau and it can be very much argued that they are not countries, but just provinces of China. The reason I escalated this dispute is because I was accused of being a vandal and a troll even though I have presented proof to the contrary. The attitude of Kashmiri is also very detestable and certainly not an example of decent behaviour. Cexycy (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to show instances of rude behavior? That will help in assessing whether there's anything actionable here. clpo13_(talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion there, and I don't see anything actionable here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Just read through the whole thread and all I mostly saw was a lot of IDHT. Also, I found no "sources" cited to back up their assertion, unless they mea this diff where Cezycy Cexycy states I remember BT offered a promotion where customers could chose five countries they call most and get a discount on calls to..., etc. If that's the best they can do, then I dthink we're done here. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Move protection at User: Jimbo Wales not working

Dynamic IPs have been persistently moving User:Jimbo Wales to Jimmy Wales, see recent page history. What I don't understand is that the page has been indefinitely move protected since forever, requiring admin access. Why hasn't the move protection been working? (Is this a technical glitch I should have asked about the Pump?) Anyway, since it hasn't and since the IPs won't stop, I've semi'd the page for three hours, which seems to be holding it so far. Of course I would have preferred not to, as Jimbo wants it to be editable. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

They were just making it into a redirect, the move log is empty (more or less). BethNaught (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. And a redirect works pretty much exactly like a move. WP:BEANS tells me we shouldn't be discussing how easy it is to "move" a page by means of a redirect. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

Just thinking out loud, what if we had another kind of protection (which I would like to call semi - but that's taken, so maybe partial protection.) This type of protection would allow any one to edit, but if an edit exceeded, say 25% of the page size, for a page that has existed for a year (to avoid false positives in the early construction period) it wouldn't go through (there's some technical details to work out re gross and net byte count, which I won't elaborate per Wp:beans). If it was just this one page, it might not be worth it, but I think we've all seen vandals make a major change to a page which needs reverting. To put it differently, how many times does an unconfirmed editor make an edit of this magnitude that is legitimate? My guess is that some examples exist, but they are so rare that asking someone else to help isn't much of a bother, and may prevent a lot of vandalism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it would be very easy to create an edit filter for that. There are already ones that stop IPs blanking user talk pages (which this almost is). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never worked with edit filters, but that sounds like it might be an option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not just permanently semi-protect it? Is there any reason for any editor besides Wales himself to be editing his user page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You really ought to read what Bishonen says and what Wales says on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Bugs except for the fact that Wales wants it to be editable. In other words, ask Wales why he wants it editable. It's his user page. Or don't ask him. He is entitled to an eccentric approach to his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, if he doesn't care, there's no reason anyone else should. If a troll wants to change it to a redirect, leave it be. Let Jimbo fix it. If he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Clue bot looking for new IP editors removing large amounts of content and replacing with redirect code in user space would be a solution but it's probably only a jimbo problem. Another solution would be to redirect the main user page to a subpage and protect the main user page. The subpage would be editable and vandalism redirects wouldn't affect the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. Having a Jimbo user/talk page causes a certain amount of work, that I personally would rather see done manually due to the delicacy of the situation. If it gets out of hand, someone can take it up with Jimbo. It can't be helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Sounds like this is a solution to a problem that never existed. As per. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to take guidance on this. I prefer it to be open - symbolically, I think that matters. But symbolism that is causing excessive work for people on a regular basis isn't really the goal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

One person out of 28.5 million WP users noticing something that isn't causing any problems doesn't equate to any extra work for anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Jimbo wants his user page open for anyone to edit, and I completely understand why. That's his prerogative and certainly a reasonable wish that we should make an effort to respect (within reason and with exception in 100% obvious cases, of course). Vandals are going to do what they do; we just need to continue what we've been being doing: revert the disruption, and take appropriate action with subsequent and repeated disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor: The_apostolica

BLOCKED:

(non-admin closure) The apostolica blocked indefinitely by Drmies as Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Disruptive editing at Glossary of Nazi Germany by editor The apostolica.

The editor is removing material against consensus and is using inappropriate language in the edit summaries and on the Talk page:

• Article: diff
• Talk page: diff

The user has been previously warned for similar behaviour on the same article on June 12: User_talk:The_apostolica#June_2016.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the report. If you combine "jew term" with "honorable Germans", you get "indefinite block" if you do your anagrams rights. If The apostolica ever feels the need to explain their language in an unblock request, well, OK I don't know how to finish this sentence. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. If you combine the two, I think you get "offensive not only to Germans, but to Whites everywhere". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me just add that an hour ago I was accused of being an anti-Semitic professor who poisons the minds of delicate American children. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You really oughta stop doing that, Drmies. BMK (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that I've noted (subjectively) a slight uptick in pro-Nazi editing over the past couple of weeks. Nothing that normal editorial perseverance can't deal with, but just a warning to all who are rightfully concerned about this not to let up your guard. BMK (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Let up your guard?" Are we getting bemused again, BMK? EEng 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:The Replicator

He is erasing tournament rankings from tournament as Copa America 2016 and Euro Cup 2016. No reasons given, it's a loss of information and a table is present in any FIFA World Cup or Continental Cup. Is not an original research, it was only deleted by him and some unexperienced users engaging edit wars as him. Does it was an idea of the wikiproject football? The Replicator decides for anybody? He is not an admin and cannot decide for all. Stop him please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.159.79 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to notify the editor when you report them at AN/I, I have gone ahead and done that for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a content dispute, not actionable by admins.

Secondly, the best place to discuss this is at WT:FOOTY, although I'm sure there's been a recent discussion about it these tables there, which concluded we don't want/need them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could someone do something about User:Juniorpetjua, who is edit warring in Empire of Brazil against several other editors? He seems to have been warned about this behavior on previous occasions in other articles. --Lecen (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This perhaps belongs on WP:AN/3 I count six five reverts and possibly more. Also before reporting someone on AN/I please ensure that you notify them of your report. My mistake, I must have made a slight mistake and created a new talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also provide diffs where you can, I will do so now. Evidence of nonconstructive edit warring against 3 different editors. [47][48][49][50][51]. The issue seems to be around the use of images. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Violations of topic ban by User:Pablothepenguin

User:Pablothepenguin was topic banned in this discussion last month, after a few blocks for disruptive editing. The ban pertains to all editing on Scotland in relation to the UK/Great Britain. He violated this ban straight away on May 9, as a test to see what would happen. I warned him about that here.

Scotland and the UK are obviously hot topics now after the Brexit vote and Pablothepenguin has made several edits in violation of the ban: 1, 2, 3. There are also some edits pertaining to Scotland at the Reference Desk, but I think those are fine (so is diff 2, if it was just that one edit). Could an administrator please act upon these violations in any way they see fit?--Atlan (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Those seem pretty clear-cut violations of the tban to me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one week. Probably a little shorter than they deserve but I'm hoping their adopter will get them straightened out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen:(pinged because Bishonen enacted the ban) For future reference, what happens to the topic ban duration now? Does it reset to 6 months, or is is still 6 months minus time served?--Atlan (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's 6 months from the imposition of the ban. It's not like a site ban for sockpuppeting which resets everytime a sock is caught. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Neophysics

This editor has made many, many deleted articles, shown here, here, here, here, here, and here. This editor seems to be WP:NOTHERE, please block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This could conceivably be construed as a new editor trying to come to grips with WP:GNG. And to their credit, they do seem to have posted on the Teahouse at least ostensibly trying to seek guidance. I'm also not sure that three IP edits passes the new-user-forgetting-to-login test. While the account was created in 2012, it hasn't been consistently active, and has less than 100 edits overall. For whatever it's worth, at least some of this is behavior that can be expected from a new and frustrated editor. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:ThePlatypusofDoom, not that a block is yet in order, but a very strong warning. This editor thinks that they understand physics better than the scientific community does. This editor has deleted one post replying to themselves at the Teahouse "because it was wrong", which violates talk page guidelines. The problem is not so much that they don't understand Wikipedia (which they don't) as that they don't understand the concept of a scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Needs a final warning; then a block if he doesn't indicate competence and being WP:HERE. The trollish uploading of this file (admins: see also the uploading edit summary), when added to his various nearly universally deleted articles, add up to an editor who does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they're still giving it a go at the Teahouse. I pointed them to the physics wikiproject. Hopefully they can be helpful. They just seems overzealous. I assume they're an undergrad. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They're just trolling there as well; more proof of WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the comment that they are trolling. Trolls know that they are trolling. This editor just doesn't accept the concept of scientific consensus and a scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let's just cut to the current example: is Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics nonsense or not? It looks like basic math and not anything of use so if so, then we should cut our losses to avoid more work for others. WP:CIR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Actually, let's cut to the chase. Read the user's talk page, look at the titles of the articles that have been deleted, and draw the inevitable conclusion. This is without a doubt a crank, and WP:NOTHERE in spades. What's needed is an indef block, toot sweet. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IP user creating redirects contrary to AFD outcomes

BLOCKED AND REVERTED:

(non-admin closure) IP blocked by Nyttend and reverted by GB fan --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

117.214.21.61 (talk · contribs) seems to be creating redirects, sometimes claiming as the outcome of AfDs (incorrectly).

• Madeenathul Uloom Arabic College [52] AFD: [53] (Outcome: Keep)
• Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna [54] AFD: [55] (Outcome: Speedy Keep)
• Mujtaba Farooq[56] AFD: [57] (Outcome: Keep)
• Thelitcham Monthly [58] AFD: [59] (Outcome: Keep)

Note: All AFDs were raised by confirmed sockpuppet ArtsRescuer (talk · contribs) (now blocked). Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note, the IP is converting articles into redirects; this isn't strictly "creating redirects", which normally means converting a redlink into a bluelink. No comment on the merits of what the IP's doing. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. @Gricehead:, let me know if the problem reoccurs. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And I note that GB fan (talk · contribs) has now reverted the articles in question. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Jytdog Outting a new editor by linking to their LinkedIn Page

Oversight blocks may only be appealed to the oversight team or the arbitration committee. Discussing the block (and thus the contents of the edit) in an open venue is not in the best interest of the project. Jytdog is welcome to appeal via email at either oversight-llists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Mike V • Talk 19:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This edit, clearly outs this new editor and puts their personal information on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable at all and violates Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. 2607:FEA8:2A5F:FF4B:BD1B:9C64:3806:C8 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Diff of addition - has this information been posted by the editor elsewhere? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please ensure you notify the editor Apparently you did inform the editor, very good. Diffs only require one [ and one ]. Thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed by GorillaWarfare. Having seen the post before it was oversighted, I'm of the opinion that a block was justified. There's no realistic chance that editor included the LinkedIn link anywhere that had since been deleted. So it's outing. What a profoundly bad idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed that was the right course of action also - many thanks to GorillaWarfare for acting so quickly to suppress the edit. To the IP editor creating this section - for this sort of issue, please note Wikipedia has an Oversight team who can be contacted in private either via IRC or email. See WP:OVERSIGHT. Mike1901 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Question: It looks like the alleged COI editor in question has...never...made any edits. Have they had their entire edit history revdeld? I'm confused.TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Timothyjosephwood: they created/made edits to TOBA Inc. - the article (and thus edits) were deleted -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'rules' about this are opaque and while I don't see the need to link to linkedin, an indef block is completely way over the top as a response. SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

They're not opaque. You don't out people. Period. If I don't say on wiki that I work for xyz company, you don't get to. It's clear. I have no idea why you're putting rules in scare quotes, as they are not suggestions that we're pretending are rules. Additionally, indefinite is not an over the top response. Indefinite blocks mean that they do not have an expiration, it does not mean a person is banned. It means that someone has to manually unblock them after consideration. Keegan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Opaque? "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." I think this is as clear as crystal, as Keegan said, unless I put it on my wiki page you don't get to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. The policy actually has an exception/loophole to links to profiles on other websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block As an oversighter for nearly seven years now, I've grown increasingly concerned by the attitudes of a few users that think it's okay to out editors as a "gotcha" against COI, in the name of defending the wiki against promotion, up to and including outing editors in The Atlantic. The wiki does not need this kind of defense - it's mean spirited, it's shameful, and goes against our basic policies and behavioral guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this attitude has to stop. Keegan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a Good Block I predict that when the dust settles, this will turn out a storm in a teacup. As I am unable to see page history or revdelled stuff, I can only go on observing Jytdog's editing. He doesn't make silly errors as have been described here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a great block I will point out the relevant part of the policy is this: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.^{[under discussion as of January 2016]}" A link to a linkedin profile counts as 'other accounts on other websites'. The reason this is there is specifically because otherwise COI would be impossible to investigate otherwise. If the revdel'd material was just the link to their profile, there is currently no consensus that this is disallowed completely. (Not being able to see the material I cant see if it was more than just a link to their profile, but the above comments do not indicate it was) Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From Jytdog's talkpage it appears the editor is editing under their own name and Jytdog linked to their linkedin profile in order to demonstrate their COI. Perfectly reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not a Good Block. A discussion with Jytdog may be appropriate - we none of us can see the posting in question. An indef block seems way inappropriate. Good luck with anyone dealing with COI issues if there are admins itching to block those who would seek to deal with this problem. Jytdog deserves better than playground bully admins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  You're straight up wrong, you and Only in death. As a checkuser I played a key role in the Bell Pottinger case, the Morning277 case, and I uncovered the Orangemoody sockfarm. As a former channel contact for #wikipedia-en-help, and as an OTRS agent and administrator, I have worked with thousands of users and articles on COI cases. Never once has tying someone onwiki to other social media accounts ever been necessary for resolution. It's shaming, it's harassment, and it's wrong. You two can armchair judge this all you want, but you're simply wrong as well. Keegan (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically allowed for by the harrassment policy. Which is the expression of community consensus on this. The policy allows linking to social media profiles. If you dont like it, you can change the policy. I would expect someone with your experience to have a deeper understanding of policy than others. Its worrying you do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The very first line of the policy is "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. " As a user with far more experience in dealing with this issues than yourself, I'm going to continue to follow that rather than a sentence that has been since added to the policy for the very reason that people can break it without getting blocked. Nope, not playing your "some harassment is fine" game. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block having seen the edit before it was revdel'd, it was entirely inappropriate to link to the editors LinkedIn profile -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Allowable under the harrassment policy. "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) May be so, but what's with the whole "case-by-case" thing? It was written as a threat/"gotcha" as Keegan says above. I think this would be best left to the admins who can see the revision -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'case by case' part is to deter fishing. If editor 'JohnDave' makes COI-seeming edits to company 'Bull Industries' - it is perfectly acceptable to ask them 'Are you the JohnDave (link to linkedin/facebook/company profile) who works at Bull Industries?' it is in fact, extremely common procedure with COI editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that I can get behind! However, this wasn't asking if they are (profile link) - if it was I would entirely agree that the block was a little too much -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block (indefinite doesn't mean permanent) I'm of the view here that an indefinite block was the right thing in order to start the discussion. Of course Jytdog is a net positive to the project, and learns from their mistakes. In my view, the block has been put in place to force Jytdog to engage in discussion - not to be punitive.... and I do agree it would be very disappointing if the block did turn out to remain in place after discussion had taken place, but we're not at that point yet. Mike1901 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(Just to add to my comment above) It's not black & white whether Social Networks can be posted in connection to COI issues in my view - and I think this is a point that needs to be clarified to avoid repeats of this issue. Mike1901 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion on block due discussions So the admins who haven't a clue what was posted are making assumptions as to what was posted. I happened to see the linkedin profile because I clicked on the link that Jytdog put. Its a proper full linkedin account, has the man's image, name, and other private details. I believe I even saw a phone number but didn't note whether it was private or business. I recognize both sides of the argument, 1. How do you look at COI without having something to go off of but also 2. This man's private details were put on Wikipedia without his permission. I also have no proof that the editor was in fact the person on the linkedin page (but that's normal). No opinion, I see both sides of the argument and fall within one camp but its not important. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What private details? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't sit around to read the entire page (I have image, number and name), do you want me to find the page and go through it because I have it in my browser history. That is if you think it'll help. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Only in death: Mr rnddude (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Took a quick skim, no number, but name, image, approximate living area, work, study, and all of their connections. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical question. An editor editing with a username that is clearly their name and is identifiable by a publicly viewable profile elsewhere is not 'private' details. Its public data. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not a rhetorical question, but, I take your point. I have no issue accepting any changes to the decision if made. Again I like Jytdog but don't agree with what he did. Also, his name is not DLadd12, close, but not really his name. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good Block (Although Jytdog was a good editor) Sadly, that was necessary. I agree with Mr rnddude's and Samtar's statements. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea. I would be willing to unblock him, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Good block Even if I usually support most of this editor's work, the username never is stated to be a first initial and last name, nor is the full name ever displayed. If he posted his full name, then I'd consider it more-or-less reasonable. If I COI-edited with my username being a first initial and last name, I would still consider it a harsh violation of privacy if someone openly linked to any of my social media profiles. I don't believe this passes WP:OUTING, and in case it did, the policy should be changed. This may or may not be considered appropriate as I have a COI, although I'm primarily a Wikipedian and strive to follow all policies and guidelines fully. I feel input from "people also on the other end" should be considered valuable. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Block violates outing policy The editor clearly was editing under their own name, making a block highly inappropriate given the situation. WP:OUTING policy is clear, However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. When someone edits under their own name, we generally alert them to WP:COI and tell them that they have a conflict of interest because they hold a particular position, etc. with an appropriate source to that (otherwise it would be an aspersion). Actual outing and harassment occur when someone starts digging up personal information obviously outside of a very basic COI investigation like this, which is pretty obviously not the case here. Nothing seems out of the ordinary here, and linking to a Linkedin profile is well within the bounds of normal civil decorum in an example like this. I recommend overturning the block and cautioning those supporting the block to pay closer attention to outing policy and the nuance of how COI intersects with it. This is far from an unambiguous abuse of that intersection, which is the only way to justify a block in this particular scenario. If people do not like this community norm supported by policy, they need to change the relevant polices and guidelines first instead of blocking someone first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  No. Linking to people's social media accounts is not, nor has it ever been, proper social decorum around here. If you believe it is, you've been hanging out with the wrong people. Keegan (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically allowed under the harrassment policy. You can keep saying its wrong, but the policy states otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You should consider how you think about things when you look for loopholes to make harassment acceptable. That single sentence in the policy is disputed, what is not is the rest of the policy as well as WP:OUTING. Keegan (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this part of WP:OUTING policy, Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis. With an appropriate amount of decorum, this is the norm in cases like this as it appears Jytdog did. The case-by-case language is to prevent wikilawyering for malicious opposition research, etc., but a scenario like this (in stark contrast to the former) is pretty much a model for why the allowance is allowed in the first place when editors reveal their identity like this. Either way, I imagine most of this is going to be taken care of behind the scenes, but admins really should be familiar in the future with all of the outing policy when issuing blocks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Finite duration block. I think the indef block was the correct immediate reaction. I also think losing a user of 8+ years over this would be a mistake. They seems to be confused about policy, once that confusion is resolved they can go back to editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a good block I disagree with the block (although I haven't really seen the exact comment and I'm gathering information by reading about it). It is perfectly fine to ask editors to disclose their connection to an entity. A COI investigation usually begins with a hook - a similar username/name linking to an off wiki source of information. When enquiring about a COI, editors are often asked if they are linked to similar usernames/names on another website. This is not outing. In addition, the editor can always choose not to respond. I don't see how this violates WP:OUTING. I recommend overturning the block and discuss changes to WP:OUTING if needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Jytdog has been very gracious about this, and has closed the thread on his talk page discussing this pending an ArbCom looksee - here however has turned into a little bit of a free-for-all. The original matter has been dealt with (either correctly or incorrectly) - might it be wise to close this thread until ArbCom has made any judgements? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we are divided in opinion here and Jytdog has no use for our bickering right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd J. Rathner

BLOCKED:

(non-admin closure) Meat Puppets blocked, votes stricken. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Definite canvassing going on, and there seem to be numerous "sleeper accounts" appearing, to the tune of "been here since 2010, 1 edit" as the most extreme, but a lot of "under 50 edits" and at least one instance of a definite sock. Problem is, the sheer number means they probably are not all definitely related to the same person. So would an SPI be "fishing"? MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there's an obvious give away for three accounts who have all capitalized the word keep in their vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have actual proof of canvassing, but I am going to wait for more accounts to comment on the AfD first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've opened an SPI anyway, because it'll take a while to resolve. I went looking, but couldn't find anything definitive. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Check this facebook status by the article subject: "Are any of my friends registered Wikipedia editors? If so please PM me." See also Snapshot of Facebook profile and the fact that the subject advertises his Wikipedia page on his profile. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so the SPA and SPI hunt is on, much like the animals he goes after, we're here to go after his puppets. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

They've all been blocked for a week as canvassed/meatpuppets. GAB^gab 01:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should the AfD be deleted and started anew?142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as that might be considered gaming the system. All of the sock votes have been struck (save one, which I think should have been struck on principle, and which I hope the closing admin ignores anyway), the AfD has been protected against IP and non-registered voting, and several uninvolved-with-the-topic, demonstrably real, long-registered, sizable-edit-history (in short, good-faith) editors have voted keep. Whether some of them are voting because of canvassing, I couldn't say, because they may well have seen it here. I don't think we should require an explanation for voting motives, and without doing that, we'd just get the same result. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Denial of sock puppetry of Moatassemakmal

(non-admin closure) The IP has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Carry on my wayward sons. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
They'll be peace when you are dones.TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lay your weary head to rest... GAB^gab 01:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There'll be even more peace when you are drones. EEng 02:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Yamla had been accused me as a sock puppetry of my user account Moatassemakmal. That's very unfair and untrue, I had been strongly denied of this allegations. It seems the administrator had trying to discredited me off from Wikipedia. I have been 2 months of anger with agony, Can you deal this heartless and ungrateful administrator please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.205.137 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1. English please, 2. Care to provide diffs, a link to evidence surrounded by [ and ] is standard, and 3. English please. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think they just admitted to being the sock of a banned editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And the user's been blocked: [60]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lovely, well that clears that up, will close. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Question

I've asked the IP editor to not attack subjects of articles on the talk page and to remain civil. Any non-admin could have asked the same, a single mild insult will not result in a block. Fences&Windows 22:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, in the site rules concerning article move proposal discussions, can we be allowing an IP address that has no previous contributions to be taking part, especially as it is immediately breaching the WP:BLP conditions? I am referring to this entry. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there's nothing stopping anonymous editors commenting in requested move discussions - you may want to remember that the vast majority of IP addresses are dynamic, so this could be a long term contributing anonymous editor. You also are required to inform the editor that you are discussing them here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not being aware that there is necessity to inform an IP address of a question about their activity but I have now done so. I believe you are undermining me and you are not answering my point about breaching WP:BLP. He cannot just be coming on here and describing someone as a "jerk". No one else in the discussion is making any personal comments about the subject. I am raising the matter here for an administrator to deal with. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to comment here, if you bring up a report on someone you are obligated to inform them. Nobody is undermining you, please don't be so defensive when somebody makes a comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

After further review, I don't believe that administrator action will be required for the issue. There aren't any personal attacks towards any contributor and the comment is merely their personal opinion of a well known (synonym for) donkey. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well. You may be closing this discussion. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am involved, so can not perform a closure for the discussion. I'd wait for possibly other opinions or an administrator closure. The vote is poor I agree, but, I don't think anything really needs to be done here. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Twice-blocked editor at it again

Please review this edit, the talk page to the article, and the reverting editor's talk page and block log. The behavior continues. I'll go notify the editor of this thread now.David in DC (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right, I'm at "IT" again. "IT" is making perfectly valid and reliably sourced additions to the Wikipedia. What you are doing is reverting reliably sourced content and engaging in edit warring. You cannot ignore the rules, (including the ones about IGNORE ALL RULES. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY AND COMMON SENSE) and then come here complaining. I haven't done anything wrong.

You are the one engaging in a petty dispute with me despite my best efforts to be conciliatory with you.

This user has no basis for his complaints about me in the Wiki rules, he is simply following a personal grudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that you've been blocked twice for the similar behavior and disruption that you're being reported here for now. This is your only warning. If you choose not to discuss your concerns and your dispute in a civil manner on the article's talk page, and instead choose to modify the article without seeking consensus or input from those that have reverted your changes back, then you'll be blocked again. Will you please discuss the matter on the article's talk page and follow proper dispute resolution protocol? The choice is up to you. Please do the right thing. I'm also more than happy to offer you assistance, but on the condition that you do not edit the article until your changes have been discussed and agreed upon. Let me know if that is what you'd like. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Blocked by Wikipedia editors who never bothered to look at the facts or listen to what I said. 2. I am being perfectly civil and I discussed with the other editor two or three times and explained my point of view. I am adding reliably sourced content, and he is reverting it and engaging in edit warring based on his singular opinion that the source is not reliable. But I have explained three times to him that the source is reliable. There is no reason the page should be damaged, or that I should listen to the complaining of an editor, when his complaints have no validity in the Wiki rules. The number one rule is IGNORE all the rules. So when an editor isn't using his common sense, is damaging the page, and is engaging in a personal grudge, I will ignore him and improve the Wiki instead. I have explained that on the Talk page many times already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the behavior continues. David in DC (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And again. David in DC (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Given their prior blocks for the same thing and their recent edit summary "I'm going to improve this page and keep it good however many times I have to revert" I have given this IP a 1 month block. We can take a nice break from their disruption. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And I had to remove their talk page access for being abusive. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruption from IP range located in Philippines

I noticed a half dozen IPs from the range 203.87.133.* vandalizing List of Clarence episodes. Upon some further inspection, there appears to be disruption on other pages as well. Since June 22, edits from this range show a pattern of disruption. Some example diffs: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] (cannot verify at all, assuming hoax info), [66], [67], [68]. Not sure if rangeblock is called for, but thought it worth bringing to admin attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who are uncomfortable with performing range blocks (if it is needed), the range of these IP addresses is 203.87.133.128/26 :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Assistance about not-neutral point of view in WebTrain

Article in question has been listed in the proper discussion channel. No further action is required. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Greetings!

I've been cleaning up an unrelated article, and through it, came across the article WebTrain. While I was reading through the article, a decent amount of it seems to be written in a way that seems like marketing or advertising-like, most especially the History and Software sections. Quickly looking over the article's talk and history pages, it has had debates in the past related to it sounding like an advertisement. It does include contributions by the chairman of the (apparently no longer in business, phone line is disconnected) company, although he seems to clearly mark his edits as his in the edit summaries.

Anyway, so my question is simply, "What is best in this situation?" My first instinct was to write here to have an administrator delete the page, but after looking into it a bit more, perhaps this article just really needs a restructuring and have the "Article seems to be written like an advertisement" template posted on top. I've been on Wikipedia for a little while, but transgressions I've found in the past were blatantly so, and I quickly dealt with them, but I felt uncertain that I'd be able to do the right thing in this case (along with the fact that this potential transgression is literally an entire article). Thus, I am requesting advice or assistance, from someone with even more experience than I, as to how to handle this.

Thank you for taking the time to read! JaykeBird (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Prefaced with the observation that I tend to be a deletionist, I'd say send it to AfD. There are no references on the article now that point to meeting CORP and as the outfit is defunct, it's doubtful there will be much available to improve it. Just my 2c. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion here. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Indus OS article

WP:SPA (who quite possibly has a WP:COI) Vinit88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is removing {{advert}} tag from Indus OS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article without giving any convincing reason for doing so. I would appreciate if someone else could look into the situation. SJK (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the substance, but SJK's claim on Vinit88's talk page that he/she has provided a justification for their version appears to be without merit. Talk:Indus OS is at present a red link. SJK should probably make some attempt to discuss this on the article talk page or perhaps on Vinit88's talk page, before elevating this content dispute to ANI. An argument could be made that Vinit88 is edit-warring, but if this is the case then the same is true of SJK. Content disputes should not be taken to ANI before the talk page is even touched. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talk page about another issue (them removing the sourced statement I added to the lede) and they never responded, they just changed it back to their version again. If you try to engage with someone and they just ignore you, can you be blamed for feeling that further engagement is just wasting your time? SJK (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

More to your specific point, I gave justification for it in the edit summary. SJK (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you left one message on the talk page of a new user, and when they didn't respond you decided to drag them to ANI?

If you repeatedly revert someone and don't provide any justification on the talk page, it is called edit-warring. Providing justification in edit summaries is not an excuse.

Note that I agree with you that the article reads like an advertisement, and that Vinit88 is being disruptive. But you are too, and (unlike Vinit88) you should know better. I am not seeing the evidence for COI, mind you. 5.6% of the Indian market share in OSes is enormous -- this user might just be very proud of the OS they chose to use. Unless the early copyvio version of the article was from an as-yet unpublished article from the creator of the topic, I can't see how this is a reasonable assumption to make. Being an SPA, of course, is not a blockable offense in and of itself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think that seeking to bring a matter to the attention of others is trying to solve things in a non-disruptive manner? Seriously, maybe I have too much of a short-fuse with SPAs, but then maybe I did something to try to get other neutral people involved? And yet you have a go at me for trying to do that. SJK (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "going at you" at all. If I was, I would be shouting "BOOMERANG" at you. My stance is that this thread should get closed before someone else comes along and starts doing just that. Open a talk page discussion. If that fails, open an RFC or take it to DRN or ANEW. Only once all these options have been exhausted should you resort to ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I asked for help on the wrong page. You know, stuff like this makes me wonder why I bother editing Wikipedia at all. SJK (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been here since 2001. Only 1227 editors were here before you. You should know better by now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I had a look and there's a lot of promotional language in it. I had a poke about trying to remove it, but being at work can't spend too much time on it. I've left a note on Vinit88's talk page to open a discussion on the article talk page, which I have made into a bluelink. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Update- Vinit88 has responded on the article talk page and is more than happy to engage in discussion. I've kicked things off but will be a little busy getting through a GOCE copyedit request. @SJK: please keep the discussion moving forward. Once I'm finished with the copy edit request, I will drop by and join the discussion. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Clarion Project

A one-issue anonymous IP editor keeps inserting extremely slanted weasel words, and unreliable news sources, into the Clarion Project article, and rejects any attempts at a compromise solution: [69][70] [71] [72] David A (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As described in edit summaries, such "extremely slanted weasel words" are from academic publications. In his first edit, user David A accused me of "smear campaign" and praised organization considered as hate-group by experts, and now he is trying to whitewash it.213.149.62.139 (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how an organisation with prominent secular Muslim reformist members qualifies as a "hate-group". Nothing it said in the "By The Numbers" video promoted hatred. It simply presented statistics from the PEW Research center, and asked for open dialogue. David A (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Its hate-group because all three films has been described as inaccurate and propaganda films. Please keep in mind that I inserted only sources about organization itself, while there are at least 30-40 more for films, all of them peer-review. Also, a personal advice: if someone present himself as "secular reformist" it doesn't imply (s)he is not a participant in hateful propaganda.213.149.62.139 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only watched the "By The Numbers" film, but again, it seemed very matter of fact, with the Muslim chairwoman simply presenting Pew Research Center statistics. David A (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Might I kindly suggest that the two of you try to open up dialogue at the articles talk page before going to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, given the sheer vitriole in the language towards what has appeared perfectly harmless to me, and that he was completely unwilling to compromise, I did not know what else to do. David A (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• (Multiple edit conflicts -- I was actually trying to post this before anyone else commented here.) I dislike passive sentences as much as the next diligent editor, but nothing in those edits really comprises a "weasel word". The edits appear to be well-sourced and accurate, and you have thus far neglected to discuss them on the article talk page (which hasn't been edited since last December). Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

Hmm. The sources that the IP had do describe them as a hate group. It does seem fairly well-sourced. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamophobia", "disputed", "controversial", "radical Zionist", "Jewish fundamentalist", "fringe", "inaccurate", etcetera. It all came across as extremely one-sided/slanted to me. David A (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But all of that is attributed to sources, or can be. If you look at this, although it doesn't have a source in the paragraph, it clearly has reliable sources calling it controversial. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a look at the articles about the organizations that are mentioned here, the articles do describe them as such. You could take this to dispute resolution? (second thought, don't). ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like virtually all hate groups throughout history, obviously they don't want to be described as a hate group. Their website makes them look like a Muslim advocacy group run entirely by Muslims, but the SPLC (arguably the premier authority on hate groups in America) gives a different description of their leadership. Clearly they got their three Muslim friends and posted their pictures on the website for some purpose other than an accurate description of their advisory board. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But it presents this as statements of fact, rather than personal opinions. I strongly believe in NPOV, so I am perfectly fine with inserting critical references, but that is all that they should be, unless quoted in a criticism section.

Also, I think that it should be possible to matter-of-fact quote scientific research about Muslim opinion polls without being character-assassinated as a hate-monger. David A (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They are quoted in a criticism section. You see, while you were bickering on ANI, I went ahead and unilaterally solved the only real problem with the IP's edits (that they violated WP:LEAD by inserting material to the lead that was not verified in the body). It is now cited in the "Criticism" section, and summarized in the lead. 'Nuff said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what a Muslim opinion poll is. I don't see anyone calling anyone else a hate monger but maybe I missed it. The SPLC is generally considered important enough to cite when it comes to hate-group designations; ThinkProgress and Alternet, that's a different kettle of fish. (None of these three produced academic publications, of course.) Drmies (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Clarion Project is being called a hate-monger in the edits in question, and all I have seen from them is a popular YouTube video in which the secular Muslim chairwoman cited various statistics from a Pew Reseach poll from 2013 that interviewed 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries, while asking for open discussion and dialogue. It all seemed perfectly harmless to me. David A (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about you being called a hate monger. If, by the way, a group that's called a hate group appears perfectly harmless, then they're doing a pretty good job. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The word "hate-monger" was never, in any of the diffs cited, added to the article space. Giving one's personal opinion on ANI, talk, or even an edit summary is usually not unacceptable unless it violates BLP. David A, please drop the stick, stop making accusations, and take this back to the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Is the current page wording acceptable? David A (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I made the two most recent edits, so of course it is acceptable to me. Are you planning on reverting it again before taking your concerns to the talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the current version is fine to me. David A (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dindiz - Possible WP:CIR issues?

As is shown on his talk page, he has repeatedly ignored WP:COPYVIO, and seems dedicated to making articles about non-notable flute players in India, such as this and this. His contributions have been very, very poor, so he seems to have WP:CIR issues. Any thoughts? Contribs here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Only one of those is a copyvio; and writing stubs is not a matter of competence. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and content creation is important, even if it requires nursing. I think WP:BITE might be profitable reading H'mmm well on that I now see that he's been here ten years... but only made ?64 edits in the last two years, so BITE might apply in spirit rather than in word. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to be careful with the expression of concern about copyright. While we do take copyright very seriously, the editor contacted the copyright holder of some text and asked for permission to use it, which the copyright holder apparently granted. While you and I both know that isn't good enough, it isn't a blatant disregard for copyright, and in fact represents a good faith attempt to comply. We need to counsel the editor about what is needed and not smack them around (figuratively) for not figuring it out themselves.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

threaten to block my ID because I have corrected some words in Chinese characters.

Not an issue for the English Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

his is my response to two warning letters from Expedia management.

One letter has threaten to block my ID because I have corrected some words in Chinese characters.

Unfortunately, Expedia contains many context which is not a right or fluent Chinese; meanwhile, it refuses the correction.

An example:

术语“数码裸体”是用于人体裸体构成图像面积1/4二维艺术品的对象，而非直接的色情。不包括与任何人或者有显著点裸体的面孔有关联的主题。人类裸体形式提出，揭示人类作为一种艺术对象，而不是涉及對方的社会关系和行为模式的个人。这被经常应用于摄影，而不是任何的而为艺术形式，数码裸体是完全有别于所有色情艺术的裸体艺术的子集，只适用于二维艺术形式。

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A3%B8%E4%BD%93%E8%89%BA%E6%9C%AF

At last, here further suggestions:

1, Not mixing Simplified Chinese Character and Transitional Chinese Character in one term, except it is just relevant to explain these characters and cultures.

2, Not adapt a sentence from any machine translation.

This is the end of my response to these two warning letters.

2016.06.28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiweifu (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want to call WP:DENY on this one? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the link provided your issue is with the Chinese Wikipedia not the English Wikipedia so I'm not sure why you are brining it up here. I'd recommend closing this and referring the user to the ZH-Wikipedia. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Expedia? John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a link to an article on digital nudity on a different WP, made by an account created at the exact time there was a lengthy string of vandalism both here and on AN, by a self-admitted sock master. Account created nearly the same second IPs started getting blocked and pages protected. Make of that what you will. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp

Despite being an editor since 2008, Alexikoua (talk · contribs) has yet to grasp the concept of the no original research policy, and its significance, leading him to make blatant OR edits like this by injecting cherry picked details and synthesizing the available material.

To provide some context: I had previously warned Alexikoua (talk · contribs) for OR:ing in another article, to which he responded, ”typical disruptie activity by this editor”, while also removing the warning from his talk page. Although he stopped pursuing the particular narrative/OR after he had been warned, officially and contrary to the aforementioned, he still maintained that he was right, and I was wrong, again accusing me of disruption and even alleging that I was ”presenting my own POV” on the noticeboard. For the record, here’s the post he referred to where I'm supposedly "presenting my own POV", and here’s the discussion in full. Surely you'd expect someone like Alexikoua to be familiar with NOR policy by now? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to end differently than this? That was archived with no action and Alexikoua has no blocks since 2013. Doc talk 08:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this report somehow contingent on that one? With all due respect, how about focusing on the issue at hand? Either it's blatant OR or it's not. If it in fact is OR, then it's either an issue, or it's not. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, this report stands for itself. The other linked report serves merely as a supplementary document. I think if anything Doc wants action to be taken. Hence the disparaging comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

tell me Sennaitgebremariam on Tigrayan

Need assistance from Administrators and/or Advanced Editors. I do not want to start nor continue a potential Edit war with Sennaitgebremariam. I have had talks with Sennaitgebremariam on the Tigrayan Talkpage, User's talkpage and my own Talkpage. I need the assistance of Administrators and other advanced editors so that we can resolve this without any more problems.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]
6. [78] Here the User Sennaitgebremariam is Deleting a Cited entry. Otakrem (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I see that there are discussions on the article's talk page, but why are you starting discussions such as this and this, and in such a combative nature? Instead of escalating your concerns here, why not try having a civil discussion with Sennaitgebremariam first? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I attempted many times but Sennaitgebremariam began using what appeared to me as slick forms of edits ie "saying putting something to W NPOV" and then deleting sourced entries. I became frustrated unfortunately and this culiminated in my "shouting" at certain points. However, I do not think a discussion can continue between me and Sennaitgebremariam without admin or advanced editor participation. I have only been trying to add the information based on the sourced citations and within the Scope of the Entry's location ie "Notable Tigrayan". For whatever reason, Sennaitgebremariam has distorted the entry. I have stopped editing the HaileSelassieGugsa since it is a point of contention so that we can have an admin or advanced user help.Otakrem (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• How about we request the admin corps to block both of you until you demonstrate you can interact in a civil manner? I'm seeing two near-SPAs, one with a very short temper and the other with a penchant for edit-warring and an aversion to talk pages, both with poor communication skills and an unwillingness to collaborate. As far as I'm concerned the one who decided to elevate the content dispute to ANI is by default the worse offender until demonstrated otherwise. Am I missing something? As an aside, it appears to be a common misperception among new editors that "cited entries", "sourced entries" and "sourced citations" cannot be removed under any circumstances (Otakrem apppears to think that Sennaitgebremariam doing this itself a violation). This is not the case. Statements with citations attached to them can be freely removed for any number of reasons: the source does't actually verify the statement, the statement's inclusion lends undue weight, the statement is sourced but not adequately enough to satisfy our stricter guidelines concerning biographies of living people, the statement is unencyclopedic, the statement makes an opinion of the writer of the source look like a "fact", etc., etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Hijiri88. A block of both of these edit warriors may help. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of resorting to blocking, could we instead give both editors final warnings? I'd like to try and help them resolve their dispute, if you'll allow me of course :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Good move. In fact neither editor appears to have ever been officially warned (or even advised) by any editor other than his opposite number- which would explain why they didn't take them seriously. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Need reword talkpage header named Vandalism

My recent edits to Template:Cvt/doc had been repeatedly reverted by DePiep (talk · contribs), but now escalated as talkpage header "Vandalism..." in Template_talk:Convert (see edit: dif981) and putting my username Wikid77 (talk · contribs) underneath plus insinuations of "topic ban". Does WP now allow such headers in template-talkpages or could some admin help DePiep retitle that header "Vandalism..." with some other phrase? As background, DePiep has, for years, repeatedly insulted me and accused me of blocking improvements to {{convert}} (see dif176), also claiming I fought the Lua script transition of {convert}, when instead I installed the first systemwide Lua {convert} in 2013 as {{convert/q}} to allow live Lua usage while minor bugs were being fixed (I am a Lua coder). So anyway, the hostilities are to the point someone else needs to talk with DePiep about renaming the "Vandalism" header (unless they are allowed nowadays?). That's the only issue for now, as further issues can be debated along with other users in the template-talkpages, and the insults have continued 4 years ([79]), but most users seem to ignore those remarks so far. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, "someone else needs to talk with DePiep about renaming the "Vandalism" header". That's the result you desire from this AN/I report? A stern "talking to"? Doc talk 09:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well AN/I is a bit like the Headmaster's Office ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes (edit conflict), if policy still discourages talkpage headers as "Vandalism by Xxxxx" then explain that, because I have tried for years to explain how I have updated {convert} for 7 years to add features or fix bugs, but User:DePiep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to want to ignore that totally, which might be a longer-term issue of wp:Competence ("is required"), and that could take months to see if actions seem competent or awry. Thanks for whatever you decide to do. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not "vandalism", and if DePiep doesn't know that then that's unfortunate. Coming here, to AN/I, to force him to retitle a talk page section in a content dispute?! Doc talk 09:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) I was invited here by ping, not by talkpage announcement.

I have no desire to start a defense, spending time building diffs and a reasoning. Background is mainly at Template talk:Convert, eg this thread (esp. third subsection). If anyone (but the OP) asks me a specific question, I'll take a look. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's what's not vandalism. Edit warring and disruptive editing are not vandalism. "Soapboxing" is not vandalism. Can you be more accurate and retitle the section when you return this to the talk page, where it belongs? Because this is just a content dispute. Doc talk 10:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to split hairs over this. However, if Wikid77 wants to conclude explicitly that "Wikid77's WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:DISRUPT and WP:OWN is not vandalism", I can easily change the section title using those words. And no, this thread does not look like a content dispute. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While decidedly less than ideal for a talk page header, at least it's not "vandalism". Meh. Doc talk 12:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits described do not fit the Wikipedia definition of WP:VANDALISM, I have changed the header from "Vandalism by serious editor" to "Questionable edits by serious editor" per "Section headings" in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter? Range block?

I asked a question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#MKUltra subproject 119 and found out that I am dealing with a drawer full of socks pushing pseudoscience (which is under Discretionary Sanctions). We could use a bit of admin help here... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a mo, I'll check some of the edits and see if a filter could be workable - is it just the one page? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) The range looks too large to do a range block. Even if you chunk the ip's one of the ranges comes out to around 65,000 IP addresses which is a lot of collateral damage. An edit filter might be a better option if Samtar can swing it. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Right then, a basic working version is at my personal test filter 733, batch tested with no false positives against a number of affected articles. Currently log only to test for a bit, I welcome admins/EFMs to have a look and make any alterations -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the edit filter will be successful, because a rangeblock is out of the question due to them having access to several busy ranges. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's hoping, updated -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Ravindu Navin

As you can see from his talk page, he has aquired an impressive amount of CSD notices, many for copyvios. WP:CIR. He may need to be blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As indeed he was for 48 by KrakatoaKatie, which he has just come off of. The copious copyvios suggest an absence of presence, whilst edits such as this, and articles such as Ranja, indicate that he may not possess the skills necessary for the community. Hang on a minute, that reminds me of someone... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• And there you have it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree with the sockpuppetry implications (left my comments at those discussions) but agree that this is an editor who either does not know and can't be bothered to learn the principles of editing on WP or is someone who is deliberately ignoring those principles. Dan arndt (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Tired of accusations by editors

ENOUGH:

All y'all might benefit from taking a look at WP:CALMDOWN. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

User:TJH2018 accused me of vandalizing a page. I'm tired of the crap on wikipedia.

It's time someone admits mistakes. Please formally apologize for your behavior. I have vandalized NOTHING. I have attacked NO ONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have improved the notice sent to the editor so that they actually know what the issue is. Please provide some help:diffs to back up your story or at least tell me which article is being discussed here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your incivility starts with this comment and just keeps going. You've been asked to drop it already by numerous editors. I'm sorry you didn't get your way with the edit request, but that's life. Nothing good can come of fixating on it. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN's conclusion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As do I. I've said the same thing on the IP's talk page, so hopefully they'll get it. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm asked to drop it? Every 15 minutes another editor I've never heard of comes to my page or someone comments on another user page. Riiiight. I'm the one not dropping it? All someone had to do was reply once to the first comment I made. Again, WP editors are making MUCH ADO of nothing. You just needed to acknowledge your error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you can either drop it, or, Boomerang is going to end up applying here. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

One, it's Much Ado About Nothing. Two, saying this right after a denied edit request does not a good environment make. It appears that it's 'you' who's the problem. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, you want me to drop it? I've had half a dozen WP editors mob-mentalitying themselves onto my talk page and accusing me of insane things. How about YOU drop it? How about an apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How bout this as a compromise. Your comments were not conducive to a good working environment. I'm sorry you were accused of vandalism for blanking your talk page. I will go leave a comment on the editors page about WP:VANDAL. Other than that, best to just go separate ways and drop the stick before the boomerang comes into effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, my comments were only necessary because I replied to other users, and these people get upset. This compromise is fine. Tell the mob to go burn a different witch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not 9 Thermidor; calling editors 'tyrranical' etc is a trifle uncollegiate, wouldn't you say...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary comment; before requesting for an edit to be made to an article that has been semi-protect, ensure that you have sufficient evidence to back up your claim. Not everybody watches sport for example and may not be aware of changes to records or similar. The reason to provide a source is to definitively prove the claim, regardless of how obvious or not they are. Finally, please have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before talking to other editors. Thank you and happy editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people may not watch sport. So then you need someone different to approve/deny the request. I asked for the request seconds after the event. Websites and sports coverage aren't updated that fast. Moreover, I don't need to prove that whatever event he won was a Masters 1000 event in the first place. The person patrolling the edit request should have some knowledge on the subject he or she is patrolling. Geesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

By policy, all claims need to be backed up by a source. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; we are behind the ball in reporting. We are an encyclopaedia, not a breaking news outlet. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 18:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is exactly correct, unfortunately until there is a source reporting it we won't be able to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try one more time before reaching for the block button. WP:BURDEN is key: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Not the talk page patroller. If you make edit requests with sources you won't have this problem. If you don't, and someone else does, just be happy the content you wanted added did get added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: A mirror of this discussion (in even more robust language) is simultaneously taking place on the IP's TP. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm aware. I'm hoping the IP reads what I wrote, realizes Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we can close this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding me? and just when I'd thought this could be resolved peacefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, mob, please burn a different witch. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, I'm AFK for 15 minutes and all hell breaks loose. It was an accident. I didn't realize it until just now. I thought it was an article. We're all human, we all make mistakes. Back off. TJH2018talk 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you telling me to back off for my comment on your talk page, or in general? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, not you. Sorry for the confusion on that. I'm referring to the IP. If he has an issue with something I've done then he should come to me, not AN/I. Overkill at most. TJH2018talk 18:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang for 98.204.228.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) based on a history of incivility and borderline Not Here and a major case of WP:DROP and perhaps one of the worst cases of WP:STICK I've seen in a while. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Block: While I haven't been involved until now, the IP user has not been WP:CIVIL at all. His entire talk page is him arguing with other editors about how they're all ganging up against him. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you really believe that blocking someone who thinks he's being ganged up on is a reasonable thing to do? What is the purpose of such a block, and what do you expect to come out of it? If you don't like reading the IPs talk page, don't go there to read it. BMK (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, the entire point of the discussions that happened above and on their talk page was precisely to prevent them from getting themselves blocked. The editor eventually took the cue and left, if it happens again, then sure go for block. This just seems retroactive in a sense. Had taken the cue, see below. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Removal of WP Gangs and why do I say that? Because it's f---ing true! Holy crap, why can't you people see that. This has happened repeatedly on this site. I correct a user, and then gangs and gangs come and yell at me, then tell me that I am not civil when I respond. That is insane, and it has happened multiple times at multiple IPs and usernames over the years. If you want to block someone who makes good edits, whatever. The problem is yours and yours alone. You have no idea how to run a community or treat good members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing you could have done was let it go. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, when you are put into an environment that you don't believe to be good for you there are two things I can recommend. The first, if you don't feel like trying to talk to the other editors, then just leave and come back to it later. The second, take the time to hear any criticism, take it on-board, and if necessary respond. Getting angry, upset, or annoyed just won't help you in the least bit. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Yujufan's disruptive editing involving copyvio images

BLOCKED:

(non-admin closure) Yujufan was blocked by JohnCD for CopyRight Violations. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Yujufan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of edit warring on Kim Yoo-jung and Love in the Moonlight, and has been recently edit warring to restore copyvio images. He/she was given a final warning by JohnCD, but has continued to upload non-free files, claiming they are in the public domain. For example, File:Kim yoo jung offical instagram update @you r love.png, has been uploaded twice since the final warning. Yujufan shows no signs of stopping, so I think a block may be needed. Random86 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User blocked. Anyone may unblock who Yujufan convinces that they understand copyright issues, but I see no sign of that. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

IP: 85.64.56.213 adding cats where they don't belong

User:85.64.56.213 has been adding cats for some time and while some have been reverted, it's difficult to go through all of them. Not sure if action is warranted, I see they were blocked for something similar, but perhaps a stronger warning is due? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing of F1 articles by Rowde (talk · contribs) whilst logged out (etc.)

• ‎92.21.243.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple removal of maintenance templates at Penske PC3 and others and abusive edit summary when removing warnings from TP. A sock of Rowde (talk · contribs) who constantly edits whilst logged out (although the account was only created within the last few weeks) to rm maintenance and other templates (see 92.21.253.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and this edit). A long-term disruptive editor for F1 articles who will not engage or change his ways. See also this edit and this one where pages were restored whilst logged out without discussion or edit summary. Over a period of a year 130+ different IP addresses have been used (list available) making it impossible to communicate with the editor as the IP changes sometimes more than once per day. And if he does see messages, he'll blank the page and can become abusive. (diff) There are discussions at the F1 project talk-page here and here and there are multiple earlier threads and discussions at other locations. This editor has been out of control for several months and the F1 project really would appreciate some assistance. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will notify both the editor, Rowde, and the IP address. Please ensure that you always notify editors when issues come up about them. May have been to quick to pull the trigger, will revert my edit. Carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was doing so!! Please ensure that you allow more time before jumping in thank you. (Reluctant laptop). Eagleash (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User reverting Menasseh Ben Israel without any evidence of obvious vandalism or violations of the 3RR.

The IP users Special:Contributions/199.102.68.249 and Special:Contributions/198.111.164.158 revert the pages Menasseh Ben Israel without any sorts of discussion or resolution attempted here. Both IPs are obvious WP:DUCKs as seen in the edit log of this article here. I see no evidence of obvious vandalism, but I stated to the user that removal of long-standing sources is a disruptive issue. This is a long term issue where the user reverts edits over weeks of time, evading any sorts of vandalism or edit warring blocks by administrators, which all deal with users which are quickly disruptive. I posted this incident on this general noticeboard here because I was not sure if this is actually vandalism, and the editor did not break the 3RR. However, I am sure that this issue needs some administrator intervention. DSCrowned^(talk) 03:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)