Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Incivility, disruptive "dumping" in threads, and activism against notability guidelines by James500

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

---

All of us are critical of some ideas from other editors from time to time, and may call something "nonsense" when sense actually cannot be made of it. But there's a major difference between that and habitual use of hostile, hyperbolic, denigrating language in a fallacious argument to emotion and argument to ridicule pattern whenever one is meeting with disagreement. Especially when it's combined with either refusal to address others' points, or a hand-wave and Gish gallop technique of using a firehose of off-topic ranting and rambling that doesn't actually address the substance of the discussion others are trying to have. That's simply disruptive.

Without digging into very far at all into just the notability-related edits of James500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and I am not the first to raise these concerns about his edits [1]:

• In response to a simple copy-editing proposal (mostly about word-order in a guideline sentence): "Utter nonsense. ... "manifestly factually untrue manifest total nonsense from start to finish" [sic] ... "Literally nothing he says is accurate." ... "This is completely misleading" ... "I am confronted by epic exaggeration ... and spectacularly misleading statements", and much more [2]. This is all just from the first 15% or so of James500's enormous 8.8K, 1400+ word rant, all dumped as a single WP:BLUDGEON paragraph, and most of it having nothing to do with the proposed revision or the problem to resolve. (Instead it goes on at length about what kinds of publications do what kinds of reviews, how GNG should (in that editor's consensus-diverged view) be interpreted and applied, his unhappiness with "deletionist mega-trolls", and on and on, concluding with his opposition to the guideline even existing – there "no possible justification" for it, he says. Also, the frequency which other respondents agreed with the proposal for revision clearly disproves James500's claim that it is "nonsense".)
• Responded with nothing but "That is total nonsense" [3] when asked by multiple parties and about multiple posts ([4], [5]) to stay on-topic and either use paragraph breaks or write shorter.
• Did not understand the rationale someone presented, and simply declared it "nonsense from start to finish" [6] (followed by argumentation that missed or intentionally skirted the actual point again; other participants showed no such comprehension problems or faux-problems; it appears to be an act to excuse ranting.)
• Declared arguments for deleting an Australian lawyer bio to be categorically "utter nonsense from start to finish" [7] (an evidently habitual phrase), but did not address any of them. Simply asserted that being a Queen's Counsel automatically translates into "notable", an idea that does not enjoy consensus (there are over 1,000 QCs in Australia alone, probably 10,000+ throughout the Commonwealth; it's an indicator of professional competence, not notability).
• "That is nonsense" again plus more off-topic hand-waving [8], when called out for misunderstanding WP:Systemic bias so badly that he said "I have yet to see any statistical evidence of actual over representation of any kind of topic on this project." [9]
• Another pointless "nonsense" post again [10] that substantively addressed nothing at all but appears to be pure battlegrounding against Hijiri88, with whom James500 is in frequent disagreement in discussions relating to notability.
• Similar ad hominem commentary, declaring other editors' input "completely irrelevant", "no value", "playing pointless semantic games", "nonsense", etc. [11]. (The other editors were simply making the point that small-town newspaper coverage of a local resident doesn't establish notability, a view well-accepted by consensus; so, James500's straw man mischaracterizations of them are demonstrably false.)
• Yet again "that is nonsense", with no substantive commentary of any kind [12].
• "I disagree with everything that you say." [13] (Followed by activism that Wikipedia shouldn't have it's definitions of and rules about primary and secondary sources and should instead use those from another field.)
• Labeled a section (WP:AUD) of the WP:Notability guideline "bizarre nonsense" [14]. (Not a civility problem, but helps establish that "If I disagree, it's okay to call it 'nonsense'" is a habitual pattern, as is unconstructive activism against consensus-accepted policy material and its application, covered in more detail below.)
• Claimed to have implemented [15] a proposed change under discussion ([16], [17]) to resolve the thread's main concern, but actually made a very different change discussed by no one [18], and which is unacceptably redundant wording which to many readers would read like some kind of typo. (It may have been reverted by now; I haven't checked yes, it has been.)

This sort of behavior seems most frequent in James500's "pet peeve" area: he is a consistent agitator against the very existence of Wikipedia notability guidelines (see [19], [20], and [21] as just a few recent examples). This is essentially a WP:1AM and WP:GREATWRONGS exercise in activism against long-standing consensus (an activity that is frequently considered WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and grounds for action in and of itself). Given this, it makes the editor's hostile and unresponsive commentary pattern doubly inexcusable.

Disclaimer of sorts: I have no prior interaction of note with James500 that I can recall. I myself was once among the staunchest opposers of WP adopting notability guidelines (at least as they were being drafted early on). I'm sympathetic to James500's viewpoint more than he'd realize. But the guidelines are part of the Wikipedia playbook, and the community has crafted and re-crafted them carefully for over a decade. I'm also not known for brevity; having a lot to say isn't a problem – dumping it in a massive unbroken text wall is, and so is posting piles of stuff that doesn't actually pertain to the discussion just to keep re-injecting one's "Wikipedia should work differently" activism viewpoint.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics
• On civility, this editor may need to be prohibited from this kind of flippantly insulting and dismissive commentary (making any real counter-argument certainly doesn't require it!). Just a civility warning might be sufficient at this time.

  Regardless, a topic-ban from discussions of notability other than its application to specific cases at AfD (where James500 is a frequent and on-topic albeit extremely inclusionist participant) should separately be considered, given that railing against a guideline's existence is not a constructive activity and is a drain on other editors' time and goodwill – and isn't likely to stop on its own. A compounding factor is the editor's attempt, in this same context, to hijack the phrase "systemic bias" to just mean "we don't write enough about ancient and medieval dead people", even to the point of clearly stated denialism that white male Westerners are overrepresented (see [22] and his comment above it, though there are several other examples even in just the few pages of contribs I looked at, e.g. [23]). Guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone who cares about WP:BIAS issues, this is difficult to distinguish from intentional trolling, and at very least seems a WP:CIR matter.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); revised: 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm frankly surprised this editor wasn't site-banned years ago. His tone is unnecessarily aggressive at best, and he's got an extreme battleground mentality when it comes to "the deletionists". This entirely aside from his specifically targeting me for some particularly slimy "enemy-of-my-enemy" harassment. He pretended to rage-quit Wikipedia when I called him out a very small portion of this (specifically his trying to trick the AFD analysis tools by never bolding his !votes, which is why this happens despite his having auto-!voted "keep" in hundreds of AFDs before that point). This is not a healthy presence for the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that the above diffs are mostly me summarizing the disruption in response to James, to which he either feigned contrition before quickly reverting back to normal or just ignored me entirely. I find these more useful as evidence than simply providing the original diffs of James's actions, as my comments explain them in context. For the slimy harassment, the primary diffs of James's activities are located in my comment, but with the quotes about "deletionists" I didn't think it necessary as they all appeared on the live version of the same page. SMcC has suggested to me on my talk page that I give all the individual diffs of the quotations, which I might do tomorrow, but Ctrl+Fing the quotes will show them accurate, and even worse in their original context. I doubt, however, that I could be comprehensive in giving all the diffs of this editor's disruptive incivility. Anyway, in the meantime anyone with access to deleted pages might want to check out the page that was userfied as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics and then deleted at James's request: it's more strong evidence of the editor's battleground ideology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Will write/link more later tonight, but James is long overdue for a tban on deletion in general, and especially on notability in particular. Easily one of the most consistently disruptive wikilawyers I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue is a discussion at WP:NBOOK where SMcCandlish is trying to outlaw book reviews as sources and James500 is arguing against this proposal. We're supposed to discuss these matters to establish consensus but it's a common vice for editors to go on too long and all concerned should read WP:TLDR. Preventing editors from speaking at all is not appropriate because this would distort the consensus process. Trying to silence such an opponent at ANI is inappropriate as SMcCandlish has just explained at WP:GRAPES. Andrew D. (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then there's the kind of case where someone doesn't get what they want out of a nomination process, RfC, BRD discussion, or other thread, and feels that someone in particular blockaded or thwarted them. So they dig around in that editor's history for enough dirt – none of which involved them – to try paint a picture of their "enemy" as a disruptive editor (or bad admin, or whatever) at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB or some other drama-board. Even cursory review of editorial interaction is going to show the noticeboard's respondents that the real motivation is petty vengeance. The editor engaging in this will be lucky if it ends with just a snowball close against their pillory-my-opponent proposition; a boomerang is quite likely.

• Wow. So, if I may paraphrase this one oppose we all knew would be inevitable regardless of the reality of the situation: "nope nope, fake news. he's mad because he wants to outlaw book reviews?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if Andrew would have posted such a clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND comment (which essentially amounts to "This user is an inclusionist, and therefore must be defended regardless of his other policy violations.") if the ANI thread about his misbehaviour hadn't been closed two hours earlier. @28bytes: This is why some threads should probably just be allowed get archived without a "formal" close. For one thing, saying there's no consensus for sanctions against him, without specifying that the lack of consensus relates specifically to his deprodding, and not to his battleground behaviour, disruptive comments at AFD, etc., makes it harder to bring up the other problems later. Virtually everyone who opposed sanctions specifically referred to PROD, and hardly any of them addressed the other stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: That's a patently false statement and you should strike or correct it. I have suggested nothing even faintly, remotely resembling "trying to outlaw book reviews as sources". That idea isn't even on the same planet. PS: This has nothing to do with "vengeance" (for what? I have lost nothing and not been harmed in any way, nor was my proposal "blockaded" by this person, but is proceeding exactly as intended and as discussed [24]). It's entirely and only about a clearly evident pattern of disruptive and uncivil behavior (which runs far deeper than I suspected it did, judging from the evidence presented by Rhododendrites and Hijiri88; I only looked back about a month in talk-post history, in notability-related pages which is where I observed the problem occurring; that's not dirt-digging, it's basic ANI due diligence).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of a long-term pattern

James's perspective on deletion and notability is an extreme one. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that for years, he is, in my experience, the Wikipedian most likely to expend incredible amounts of text to wikilawyer the absolute correctness of his perspective and the extent to which there is clear consensus supporting him and against others; and furthermore, that other people -- especially "deletionists" -- are the ones wikilawyering, acting in bad faith, and harassing him. His perspective is objectively correct until presented with evidence, at which point anything can become subjective (GNG, the interpretation of data (data which is probably wrong anyway because James disagrees), etc.), so he's still right. It's an exhausting time sink, and the battleground approach he takes throughout often turns the whole discussion toxic.

James routinely acts in contempt of standard community norms when they do not suit him. A handful of such examples would be ok -- we aren't robots, after all, and nobody asks for absolute conformity -- but persistent, seemingly antagonistic refusal to many users' requests are disruptive/tendentious and counter-collaborative. For example, when it's clear he's going to be in the minority, he refuses to bold his !votes (seemingly so that AfD stats cannot track it). He wrote an essay encouraging others to do that same -- a wild wikilawyering exercise that was nixed from projectspace at its MfD. Another example is how James removes all messages from his talk page and does not archive them. This is standard for someone evading scrutiny, and extremely uncommon for anyone else. Again, not on its own grounds for a sanction, but combined with all of the rest shows a pattern of disregard or even hostility towards established practice and other users' polite requests. Then there's refusing to indent threads like everyone else (which is included in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, from which James argued to remove it back in 2011, so it's something he's known for many years now). James frequently responds to someone on the same indentation level, even after being asked to do so many, many times. For examples, [25] [26][27] [28] [29] [30]. The last two are both examples of extensive wikilawyering, and he defends the practice of not indenting at length and declares that closing admins must carefully consider his non-indented comments or should be desysopped (a declaration that also came up when talking about not bolding !votes, which, as it happens, is also addressed in the deletion review link). Yet another example: it's well established at AfD (a venue James knows well, which makes the following seem disingenuous) that just linking to a search engine is insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage/GNG. Yet he defends doing so and even says that asking for sources at AfD is equivalent to insisting an AfD be referenced like an article. This last example is less ubiquitous in his edits than the others, though. Another example, posting to a thread after it has been closed: here a thread created by a banned editor was closed with no support at all; James posted under the closed thread to argue the opposite -- that AfDs with only delete votes should be relisted and AfDs with no participation should be kept as no consensus. And then there's stuff like "'Plagiarism' is not a valid concept, it is a political weapon"...

The wikilawyering/battleground is everywhere upon even just a spot check for large text additions to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Especially at any notability-related page (I would invite any skeptical editor to look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:42, etc.). In terms of WP:BATTLEGROUND, James makes constant references "deletionist", "ultra-deletionist" [31] [32], etc. bogeymen and all of the terrible things they do. It's an always-available, imaginary evil to play against, to make his ideas sound sensible, rather than way outside of consensus themselves. He also frequently responds with insults or dismissals of people's comments (along these lines, though not always as clustered together).

You may look at some of these diffs and say "hey some of these are a few years old now." It's true. Most of my interactions with James were in 2014-2015. He did not edit from early 2016 until earlier this year, when we find ourselves back here for the very same sorts of things. Speaking of my interactions, it will also become clear in looking at some of the diffs above that I have been directly involved in many disputes with James. Take that as you will.

In short, because James has shown a long-term pattern of wikilawyering and a battleground mentality when it comes to discussions of deletion and notability, I would Support an indefinite topic ban on discussions related to deletion and notability, broadly construed. At this time I would abstain from taking a position on a community ban until I have time to take a closer look at his mainspace contributions, which may well be good. As I recall, James has some expertise in law (this is not me taking a wikilawyering swipe, to be clear), and that's a kind of expertise Wikipedia could use more of. My hope is that this is one of those situations when issues really are constrained to a particular topic area, and can be addressed with a lesser restriction. If mainspace contributions are good and the problems are indeed limited to deletion/notability discussions, I would certainly oppose a site ban (I'm only mentioning it because it was brought up above). Apologies for this wall of text. This is already the most, I think, that I have ever written on ANI, but I think that when it comes to a major sanction of an established editor, a long post is called for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I think it is inconsistent to accuse me of "expending incredible amounts of text" in a post more than 8.6 kB long, preceded by a post that was more than 10.7 kB long before it was expanded, and many others that are not particularly short. Especially when many of these criticisms relate to things that happened a long time ago and are stale. Am I expected to answer all of these many criticisms without writing something of a similar length? James500 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Evidence age matters when reporting an incident; that report is by me, and uses fresh evidence. Rhododendrites' evidence from further back establishes that this is a long-term abuse pattern and not a one-off temporary problem. It's the furthest thing from inadmissible or irrelevant. If I'd known of the depth of this problem I would have proposed a broader t-ban at very least, or perhaps an indef or site-ban. There is also no valid comparison to be made between your habit of dumping massive, attacky, off-topic, anti-consensus rants into ongoing discussions, and someone providing a comprehensive multi-year summary of your problematic edits. If the only response you can muster to this ANI is to point fingers at someone else in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner, this is not a good sign. No, you are not expected to post a huge rebuttal. You are expected to make it clear that you understand why some of your editing patterns are a problem and why that problematic activity is going to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate? Even if the problem alleged does not actually exist, did not actually happen, and is not supported by the evidence provided? Or even if the criticism misunderstands a relevant policy or guideline, or misunderstands something I said? Or even if I stopped doing the thing I am accused of long ago? Or even if other editors in this dispute have engaged in incivility etc towards me? Even if the only editors who agree with the criticism are involved in this dispute with me? If that is the case, I clearly have no choice but to say whatever you want me to say. It goes without saying that I will accept the community's decision in this matter and do whatever the community asks me to do. If I am not allowed to say anything in my defence, I think I should wait to hear what some uninvolved editors think before saying anything. If they tell me I am in the wrong, I will apologise 100% and modify my editing 100% in accordance with their wishes. If they would like me to explain myself, I will be happy to do so. They can even set me a word limit, and I will stick to it, if they feel that necessary. James500 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  No one said anything about what's "allowed". I'm trying to advise you how not to get blocked or banned. You can take that in the spirit in which its offered or ignore it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  James, as an outside, uninvolved editor, I have to say: your response above is exactly the kind of problem people are talking about. You took a comment that said you should not go tit-for-tat with someone, and turned it into I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate?. This is the problem I am seeing. You twist others statements into pretzels, then complain about how salty said pretzels are. There's a repeated pattern of taking specific words from another person's statement, and using those out of context to claim the editor meant something other than what they clearly said. It's that confrontational "gotcha!" style of arguing that's exhausting other editors' patience with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying. I am sorry for my response to SMcCandlish above. It was a mistake. But most of the time I cannot actually understand what SMcCandlish is saying. I, for example, have absolutely no idea what the expression "nanny nanny boo boo" means. If he had used the expression "tit-for-tat", as you did, I would have understood immediately. He and I have a communication problem. I cannot understand most of what he says. If he is going to continue to talk to me, I am going to need someone to translate what he says, because I cannot understand him, most of the time. James500 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  But you're doing exactly the same thing again. Rather than just absorb the point, you've latched onto some tiny phrase in what I said, "in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner", which can be completely removed from my post without substantively changing anything about its meaning, then you claim you "cannot actually understand". There is no communication problem. There's a WP:GAMING and WP:CIR problem, and you are not fooling anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would support a notability/AfD ban. According to AfD stats, he's voted delete exactly once, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Female_Struggle (another delete vote shows, but it was actually a keep vote incorrectly identified by the software.) Obviously there's been some gaming of the statistics as noted above, and there may be valid reasons to consistently vote keep/have an inclusionist point of view, but his votes stand out for two reasons. First, the use of statistics from book searches to keep articles, and to be fair, he has been in the right on several of these I've checked. But for other articles, especially articles unrelated to books, he is completely unwilling to vote delete, often citing non-existent or irrelevant notability guidelines without explanation in an attempt to keep the article, and argues against any notability guideline that could be deletionist in the slightest. I'm not sure a site ban is warranted, though. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I've linked to several user pages and discussions with specific people above. I intentionally didn't link to usernames to avoid any sense of canvassing, but now I wonder if that conflicts with ANI norms of talking about people's discussions without notifying them. I will presume not do so myself unless told otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict with ANI norms. I have seen people pilloried for canvassing when they name-link a large number of allegedly aggrieved parties. The ANI rule is to notify people about whom one is making a report, i.e., the person[s] potentially subject to sanctions. If someone else ends up also potentially subject to them, they'd be notified if they're not already involved in the thread. We also typically name-link people if we've made a specific claim about their involvement, statements, understandings, etc., in case we might be mistaken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Tell that to this guy Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I never read your replies but your comment leads me to believe you still think it was okay for you to call out someone edit's on AN without notifying them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Meanwhile of course, I'm assuming you're still claiming you needed to be notified for something which actually had nothing to do with you which even SMcCandlish's (IMO mistaken) comment doesn't agree with. I would note that in any case, SMcCandlish does recognise something you failed to last time around. Wikilinking someone's name or pinging them raises the same canvassing concerns that notifying them does. Therefore if you are concerned over canvassing it's a moot point whether you wikilink or notify. The question should be solely about whether it was acceptable to do so, so your objection to someone being notified when this came up remains pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not complaining about you mentioning my comments here without notifying me. That's the sort of thing which was completely okay as there's almost no chance anyone is going to raise concerns with my behaviour, except by opening a new thread. My only concern is that you still feel it was okay for you to talk about the actions of the editor who originally closed the AN/I thread, even though you simultaneously felt they didn't have to be notified, while also feeling you had to be notified even though your actions had nothing to do with the discussion, and it was fairly unlikely people were going to discuss your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think the issue there was my discussing the editor in question without wanting them notified but the other editor's choosing to shoehorn a reference to them in to an otherwise unrelated filing. And, as with the discussion at WT:CIVIL to which that editor had canvassed others, context matters: if the editor in question hadn't just received a stern final warning for canvassing, I wouldn't have even made note of the shoehorning. Conversely, SMcCandlish opened an ANI thread about a discussion I had posted in more than he had; his not pinging Rhodo was actually more unusual than his pinging me, so he could hardly be accused of canvassing, even if an ANI thread had just closed with him being warned about canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I don't think it's acceptable simply to namelink people if you are bringing their involvement up for discussion anymore. You need to notify them when you are naming them. If you are not naming them because their actions don't matter, or you believe they don't matter then you should not name them or notify them. If their involvement was incidental and it's unlikely anyone is going to bring up their involvement for discussion, it may be okay to simply wikilink them but this is IMO risky probably why it's rare. When that happens, it's not uncommon that someone's actions come up for discussion and they are never notified despite not yet being a participant because the assumption is made they were already notified. It's IMO rare for someone to notify people except at the beginning of a thread so if people aren't notified at the beginning, they often aren't going to be notified point blank. (Of course in practice, whether notified or wikilinked someone may simply read a discussion, say something or not, and decide they have nothing to add and then not read it anymore only for their actions to later come up for discussion. We can't handle all possibilities we simply do our best to be fair to editors.) Since canvassing concerns arise either way, not notifying someone when you are wikilinking them is of limited benefit. The only exception I'm aware of is when you're simply pinging someone because they've dealt with the editor or page of concern before so may be interested in the discussion (rather than being the focus of it), although even then it's not that there's a harm in notifying them, simply that it isn't needed. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. I tend to ping someone in a thread like this if I'm putting forth my interpretation of what they've said, I'm directly quoting them (perhaps out of context?), or have characterized their actions (and it's important in the context), since they have a right to say whether I'm being accurate or off-base about them. But if someone I'm reporting got in an argument with 10 editors, and certainly not going to ping them all to come and restart their flamewar. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment in defense of above site-ban reference I'm not actually proposing an SBAN or even an indef, and at this stage would be satisfied with a TBAN. My reasoning for saying that I am surprised he hasn't been site-banned is that having a battleground mentality this virulent is normally a quick ticket to a community indef (functionally the same as a site ban), and while I too have not examined James's mainspace edits, I do note that since returning this year his article edits are roughly equal in number to his WP:-space edits, and many (most?) of the former are actually deletion-related (this applies to all of the ones on European literature, lists of star systems, and years/centuries in philosophy), and so would be covered by Rhodo's proposed TBAN anyway. The harassment of editors he sees as "deletionists" in non-deletion-related areas, such as requesting that an editor who was blocked partly for harassing me be unblocked, is also, IMO, the worst thing about his behaviour, and experience[33][34] has taught me that TBANning editors who do this won't actually stop it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• support TBAN from notabilty and deletion discussions. That was a lot to read, and yes, this person is disruptive on these topics and refuses to accept the community consensus (such as it is) or even to see the need for it. Hopefully they will contribute in other areas. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @User:Jytdog: If I was to accept what you consider community consensus on notability and deletion, would you change your !vote? If I was, amongst other things, too agree to refrain from !voting to keep articles that should not be kept according to what you consider community consensus, would you change your !vote? James500 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have to observe that this is a spectacular example of a WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR problem. This is not about negotiating with particular individuals to WP:WIN them to your side by slightly tweaking your tactics. The point is complete cessation of tendentious and uncivil verbal combat against site-wide consensus about what notability is, why we have it as an inclusion criterion, and how it is applied by the community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have struck my comment. I am sorry that I made it. I think that I now understand what you want me to refrain from doing. I agree to refrain from doing what you have just told me to refrain from doing. I will never open my mouth on the subject of notability again. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• support Tban from notability and deletion discussions per Jytdog. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, is anyone gonna look at this?

So far this thread has received commentary from the editor who filed it, the editor who is the subject of discussion, another editor (me) who was pinged, another editor involved in the dispute that led to this thread and with a long history with the subject of the thread, and a battleground editor who defended the subject of the thread with a bizarre non sequitur because said subject agrees with him on one hot button issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've been reading this thread and there's quite a bit I could say. But anything I did say would only be throwing petrol on the fire without doing anything to help the situation. I do agree though that the stuff about "forbidding book reviews" is just obfuscation. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted a comment in the previous section. Waiting to see how James responds before making any further statements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Frankly, I agree entirely with this thread, but I'm so tired of this crap that I don't feel like contributing to it, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that front. That's all I'm gonna say. ansh666 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: James500 exclusively votes to keep articles, but his participation at AfD has been generally productive. The AfD tracker shows that "without considering No Consensus results, 81.9% of AfD's were matches and 18.1% of AfD's were not". This is pretty good. If there are problems with participation in notability discussions, then there are probably better ways of dealing with the situation, such as ignoring their comments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• @K.e.coffman: I can only presume you didn't read all of the above (though can't say I blame you). One of the very issues above is that James found a way to game those stats, refusing to bold his !votes except in certain circumstances and thus controlling which are tracked by the tool. If you actually look through his contribs to AfD rather than use the stats tool to do so, you will see that his record over the years is poor. Regardless, none of this is about accuracy at AfD, it's about a years-long pattern of disruption, battleground mentality, etc. around the topics of deletion and notability. I can pull a lot more diffs demonstrating this, but if all of the above didn't convince you, I don't know what will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I do recall the "Salami" essay MfD. But it seems that the non-bolding of !votes has stopped, and I'm going by personal experience with seeing James500 at AfD. Most recently, I saw his edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Over the Abyss where I was going to vote keep, because it was a notable book. I'm sorry that your experience has been negative; I generally try not to get into repetitive discussions, hence my advice to ignore posts like that. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That you have had positive experiences doesn't invalidate the heap of diffs to the contrary, unless you're saying all of the above is perfectly acceptable? Or you just don't believe it's evidence of a pattern. There are so many diffs, that I wonder what sort of evidence you would consider sufficient, if anything? Again, this is more about discussions about deletion and discussion of notability than accuracy at AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: TBF, leaving out the "no consensus" results kinds misses the point, since it leaves out the cases where there would have been "consensus" of one or two editors ("soft delete") had it not been for him showing up and undermining that, and there is also the fact that he actively tried to trick the AFD stats tool by not bolding his !votes. This, for example, doesn't show up as an AFD in which he cast a !vote, despite the fact that any human being who can read can see he clearly did -- and in fact the AFD only took place because he disruptively requested a bunch of articles he hadn't read be undeleted "just 'cause". All of this was outlined, somewhat briefly/simplistically, in my own comment above, and Rhodo at least also alluded to the refusal to bold !votes in order to trick the AFD stats tool -- did you read them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: This is all off-topic. This ANI report has nothing whatsoever to do with AfD stats, but with long-term and topically focused incivility, and a habitual campaigning against WP consensus being WP consensus (i.e., to have notability guidelines and to apply them, to delete non-notable articles). That is the entire subject. Even if he had a 100% AfD record, these issues would remain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Revision: The ANI I opened had nothing to do with ANI stats, but enough editors have raised the issue that I concede its inclusion. However, I think most of the discussion about it has been a "sidetrack" of the central concerns, which are civility and soapboxing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• After reviewing this thread a few times over the past few days, I feel I can say definitively that I don't plan to comment on it in detail. The early grave of a no-consensus closure-by-default is sufficient, in my view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what that means. Are you saying that in your view there is no action justified, or is this a non-comment to justify spending time digging through ANI yuckiness? I would ask you the same as coffman, then: what, exactly, would be convincing if not the evidence above? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• It means I've seen him at AFD and haven't seen anything beyond "annoying" in his behavior, certainly nothing that would justify sanctions here. None of the specific diffs presented here are enough to convince me otherwise. The warning that the ANI regulars are aware of him and if he becomes more tendentious, he is more likely to be sanctioned in the future, is probably sufficient here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Several times it's been bad enough to come to ANI. On one or two occasions it did. On the others, James did, as above, saying "I'll stop" when confronted with the possibility of ANI. There have been breaks, but no stopping. Eh. Perhaps the single most consistent and problematic long-term wikilawyer I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. Anyway, if I see a request for more evidence/diffs, I will drop more links. I'm less than convinced people will actually click them, though, so I'm going to allocate time elsewhere for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I hadn't seen him at AFD but in a discussion about notability in general (which he apparently considers to be part of a deletionist plot to destroy the encyclopedia), and called him out on his combative language. He responded by, several months later, requesting that an editor who was indeffed (partly) for harassing me be unblocked for apparently no other reason than that he didn't like me, and showing up on an ANI thread to defend another user whose harassment of me was under discussion (he had never edited the noticeboard before). You might call this behaviour "annoying" but I call it downright disturbing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a second look. Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged, but they certainly don't justify any of the sanctions. Disagreeing with the community consensus on notability (in discussions about changing the notability policies) is something that can't be the justification for sanctions. Beyond that, we have a general tendentious tone; I don't think a warning "James500 is encouraged to be less tendentious" will please anybody. The (now-10-month-old) discussion on WT:NBOOK is one I've been a part of (as have SMcCandlish, Rhododendrites, Hijiri88, and James500); an RFC is probably necessary there and James500 should be encouraged not to comment on the drafting of the RFC (before it is open to general comment). Am I missing anything else? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I pinged you above with specific diffs of James500 engaging in hounding of an editor he had decided was a "deletionist": did you not see them? There was nothing in my above reply to you about Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged; you are indeed missing something else, but given that you responded to a comment that was 100% about harassment and completely ignored that, it looks like you are doing so deliberately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

After the incident where Hijiri88 felt that James500's vote at Philafrenzy's RFA was hounding, I don't feel this is a topic that needs to be investigated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm ... it was hounding, as clearly demonstrated by the evidence above that shows irrefutably that he was hounding me (how on earth did he know who Huggums537 was, and why did he show up there right before showing up at ANI thread I had opened?): the problem was that RFA is a fiery enough place already, without using the RFA talk page to address who is hounding who. But bringing that up here just comes across as mudslinging for the sake of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not engage in excessive wordiness. I will improve my indenting style. I will not use the word "nonsense" to describe other editors' talk page comments. I will not comment on the drafting of the RfC at WT:NBOOK. I will refrain from tenditious tone in the future. Is there anything else you would like me not to do? James500 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That honestly sounds entirely reasonable and notably more "getting-it" than previous responses, though you may be at once over-promising (that's a lot of detail to remember) and under-promising (in that some of it's gameable). Consider that the central issues here are incivility, and a "lobbyist"-style, anti-consensus approach to notability. It wouldn't be taken as reasonable to, say, start using "stupid", "twaddle", etc., in place of "nonsense", nor to just stop opposing notability guidelines on their talk pages but instead go to AfD and argue robotically to keep every article regardless of the applicability of notability guidelines. It's not about navigating a checklist of don't-do-this-little-thing and do-that-little-thing, it's about working within Wikipedia as a system and a community. That said, I'm inclined (finally?) to take this show contrition and awareness at face value.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm I will not use the word "stupid" or "twaddle" or any similar word to describe other editors' talk page comments, and I confirm I will refrain from incivility and follow Wikipedia:Consensus. James500 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the above explicit ignoring of my request below is quite telling: someone saying they will "refrain from incivility" in response to another editor telling them to avoid using a specific uncivil word, which they can later say is "up for debate" whether its use qualified as uncivil, would be bad enough by itself, but James500 still hasn't even acknowledged that targeted harassment took place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri can you be more specific about what term we are talking about here? If it's "deletionist", I am afraid I am with James on that one small point. I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative, but if I am to be perfectly blunt, I think that's a bit histrionic and I don't think you are going to find it is a common view--in any event, I am quite certain that it's not going to be a big factor in anyone's analysis of whether James has been incivil in general with regard to the conduct discussed here, which presents far bigger questions. I say this as someone whose AfD stats, last I checked some years ago, skew strongly towards the "delete" side of things, and who will probably thus be accused of being a "deletionist" at some point. But the word in itself is just a term that some editors have adopted as descriptor for a supposed editorial philosophy. Let me be clear that I happen to think it's a small-minded, jingoistic term personally; it does seem to suggest, especially in the context in which it usually used, that the "deletionist" works from a knee-jerk, dogmatic approach and just wants to see things gone out of some obsessive, non-nuanced, mechanical approach to deletion discussions. Whereas the "deletionist" might say, in any given context in which that term is invoked, that they are simply following policy and that content guidelines make it clear not everything is appropriate for this project. So when someone uses that term to describe the approach of another editor, it degrades the strength of their argument, because they have chosen to adopt an argument that looks at least a little like a scarecrow argument and which attempts to build itself by addressing the "opposition's" characteristics rather than the issues themselves--both of which are weak forms of argumentation when it comes to policy/editorial decisions.

But WP:INCIVIL or a WP:PA? No, I'm sorry, I feel that's excessive. A dumb term? Yes. A clumsy bit of work in categorizing people instead of on-topic discourse of the virtues of approach A as opposed to approach B? Typically, yeah. But nothing actionable. People have to be able to have some flexibility to make their arguments on this project, and sometimes that does involve analysis of the bias of other editors. I think people reach to such arguments and statements more readily than I'd like on this project as a general matter, but I certainly can't get behind labeling that as incivil in itself, because sometimes its going to be vital. So I would call "deletionist" just generally lame, rather than offensive. But beyond my personal views, there's this to consider: we just had an RfC on WP:CIVILITY in which a substantial number of users felt the phrase "fuck off" was not per se offensive, even if said in the context of a dispute. What chances do you think you really have of convincing a majority of editors at ANI to take action against "deletionist" in that context? Of course, I could be mistaken; it could be you were referring to something entirely different, in which case, sorry for bending your ear with my deletionist dissertation!

More broadly, while I wouldn't defend James' conduct throughout (I'll speak to that in a separate post) I will say that at this point he is being more cooperative than one typically is at this point in a conduct discussion. He's already pledged not to do/say a number of specific things here that others have expressed concerns about. Usually a truly tendentious editor will not make such promises, because they believe (and correctly so in most circumstances) that if they do not abide by those promises, someone will quickly bring them back here seeking a sanction--because at that point, they will have tacitly conceded that the behaviour was not appropriate. Again, without pretending James' conduct has been perfect, James has agreed not to utter some words that I think a lot of other editors would not willingly part with. So is it truly that important to you that he concedes an apology to you specifically? Is that really where you feel the focus of this discussion needs to be? Because I must be honest with you, whether it is a fair assessment in this instance or not, it makes it look like any commentary on the conduct issues you may be offering here have a strong personal element. And therefore it doesn't seem so much targeted to meet community/project needs so much as you're own. If you have reason to believe James is being disingenuous, that's one thing. But if on the other hand you believe his promises are good-faith, is it really worth the risk of derailing that progress in order to try to get him admit being the one at fault in the personal dispute between you? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Without getting into many of the specifics here, @Snow Rise: the issue is not the term "deletionist." Plenty of editors use that term on a regular basis. The issue is the manner/context. Regardless of what a deletionist is, whether such a thing exists, or the extent to which it is a good or bad thing, James uses the term "deletionist" as an evil bogeyman -- a rhetorical tool to make wild assumptions of bad faith fitting into an overall battleground approach to notability-related discussions. It is an easily available straw man rationale to support any mischaracterization of notability/deletion-related matters that otherwise have broad consensus behind them. I've been called deletionist (as well as inclusionist) a number of times. The words don't matter (similar to the recent civility RfC, it's about how they're used/context, and long-term patterns). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I do see some hints of the term being used in a jingoistic, dismissive fashion in some of the diffs provided thus far, but I am afraid I (and I suspect many other community members) would have to see more of those specifics before supporting such a strong sanction as a topic ban from all notability-related topics (that's a pretty solid chunk of all possible editorial activity on this project, even if we limit it to policy pages and don't include article content/AfD contexts); see my larger post below for a fuller description of my feelings on that. I certainly find this kind of usage (even insofar as has been presented here already) to be myopic, dogmatic, and indicative of subpar logic. But if we begin to topic ban editors from policy areas where they regularly hit that trifecta, we're going to have our work cut out for us here at ANI for, oh let's say the next thirty years. I'd need to see either something that more cleanly crosses the threshold into open hostility/incivility, or attempts on his part to filibuster/game the system/troll/what-have-you, before I could contemplate a topic ban here. Just expressing skepticism about the existence of a policy, on that policy's talk page, is not in and of itself unacceptable in my view. We need to be able to occasionally challenge even fundamental assumptions about how this project works from time to time. While I think James' approach would be nonsensical, I'd not be comfortable declaring his perspective anathema. That really would be pure dogma. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Sorry, I saw your above comment, but didn't get it read to the end, and through some accident of combining diffs I thought it was written by SMcCandlish, and replied to him in an email (pinging him so he knows that email was in error). Hijiri can you be more specific about what term we are talking about here? If it's "deletionist", I am afraid I am with James on that one small point. Per the final consensus statement of a recent RFC that apparently involved comments from "hundreds" of editors, context matters when discussing civility. "Deletionist", in the context in which James used it in quotes like gigantic pile of wholly unmeritorious incredibly extreme mega-deletionist garbage,[35] [w]e ... need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD,[36] [s]uch deletionist trolls need to be silenced,[37] Massive oppose to all deletionist SNG,[38] all or most of the constructive useful editors have left because they have been bullied out by those deletionists who do nothing but smash up good content and make a nuisance out of themselves,[39] ignore any deletionist garbage SNGs,[40] some deletionists seem to think [X],[41] [i]n the minds of some deletionists[42] and some deletionists seem to want Wikipedia to be a children's encyclopedia based on poor sources[43] definitely was not civil (note that I linked to a mass diff of all of these quotes several days ago).

There's also meta:Deletionism, which says Few editors would explicitly describe themselves as "deletionists", rather the term is often applied as a slur, as self-deprecating humor, or simply used to expose contrast with people describing themselves as inclusionists. This view -- the official view, for at least the last seven years, of the page to which WP:DELETIONIST is soft-redirected -- is in-line with my user-essays User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists" and User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists" (presumably what you mean by I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative -- the latter is actually a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I've called myself an inclusionist several times, with reference to my support for including more articles on marginalized/underrepresented topics in the encyclopedia). Despite those titles, I'm not trying to impose a hard-and-fast rule on the community, but rather saying that the word "deletionist" is, by definition, almost never used except as a pejorative or in a humorous/ironic sense, and so should be treated the same as other pejoratives when it is clearly used in this sense -- and you can't tell me that deletionist trolls need to be silenced is not using it in this sense!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I note that you have somewhat selectively quoted James there: "deletionist trolls need to be silenced" sure does sound bad, but what he actually said is "Such deletionist trolls need to be silenced with objective precisely worded criteria..."; so, a substantially different tone when the entire clause is presented. That said, I will concede that it is hard to view "deletionist troll" as a term that represents a respectful, collaborative mindset, regardless of what sentence it appears in. But in my opinion, the operative word in that phrase which defies WP:AGF is not "deletionist", but rather "trolls". "Deletionist" standing alone just cannot be considered a pejorative insofar as it describes an editorial philosophy; that philosophy, insofar as I can tell, is largely a scarecrow label, which is why I think it erodes, rather than augments, any argument it is added to. But at the same time, it's not intrinsically hostile, and I think we need to be careful with what we label a "pejorative" vs. "a term that tends to suggest a myopic view and a proclivity towards factionalism". It's difficult enough to enforce basic civility standards on this project without opening up that can of worms.

All of that said, the diffs you present do help to develop the argument of a problematic pattern here; I just don't think that recognizing that pattern particularly centers on the word "deletionist" so much as the general refusal to AGF. The thing is, James seems immensely more willing to make concessions about these behaviours than your average person being scrutinized at ANI. Myself, I have never interacted with him or even seen his conduct out on the project beyond what has been presented here, that I can recall, so I have no sense of how sincere he is likely to be about moderating his approach. But it does seem to me that given those concessions, there's almost no chance of a TBAN resulting from this complaint--indeed, a sanction was unlikely to have resulted here regardless of any promises. However, since James has tacitly admitted his rhetoric could be altered to be more gracious to his philosophical opponents, I for one would take a dim view of things if he did not follow through on those promises, and I'm betting I am not the only one. So if this has to come back here again over essentially the same behaviours he has promised not to indulge in, a sanction will suddenly be looking much more likely. So I certainly hope he didn't make those promises hoping they would mollify scrutiny without a need to follow through--he's likely to be surprised by the outcome if so. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a Catch-22, though. People have already complained that the evidence presented was too long and detailed, and someone even made a (bogus) WP:WITCHHUNT accusation. You're asking for an actual witchhunt, to diff-dig into James500 past edits to dredge up additional examples of the exact same things of which we already have sufficient evidence – both as to them being repeated instances of the same sanctionable behavior and as to them forming a very topical pattern of tendentious battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Except you do not seem to have a consensus which holds that the conduct presented so far actually is sanctionable, at least not with regard to the sanction you are seeking. I'm by no means urging you to go digging through anyone's edit history. I'm just telling you that James' conduct that you have presented thus far does not constitute the kind of disruption or incivlity I would need to see before endorsing the proposed TBAN. You may do with that information as you will, but certainly should not take it as encouragement to do anything you feel would be inappropriate, unfair, or generally discouraged by the community in discussions of this sort, or which you have been advised against in particular here. As to others telling you that your previous posts were excessive, I was not among them, so I can only speculate as to what they meant, but from my observation your post was very long, but also very repetitive, describing the same kinds of behaviours over and over. That may have been intentional to demonstrate the persistence/proclivity involved, but the problem is that I for one found those particular behavours (while by no means admirable) to fall short of outright disruption. Besides, James has promised to abet the behaviours which you spend the lion's share of your initial post describing, and you don't seem to be forwarding the contention that he is being disingenuous in his pledge, if I am reading you correctly? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the apparent lack of consensus is mostly due to friends of James and people who don't like SMcCandlish, Rhodo or me showing up to defend him, while largely ignoring the actual substance of the problem. Take, for example, Power's bogus assertion that James wasn't hounding me: has he presented any reasonable explanation for the evidence provided other than that James was hounding me? He was either hounding me or one of the other "deletionists" involved in those discussions (e.g.: the admin who filed the ANI report that got Huggums banned, whom I will not name as doing so would put me in a catch 22 of either pinging him or being accused of discussing someone on ANI without notifying them) -- the weird thing is that SMcC was, coincidentally, against banning Huggums, the same position James suddenly decided to espouse several weeks too late, "coincidentally" at the same time as I opened an ANI thread on the serial plagiarist / unreserved "inclusionist" Dream Focus and two other editors opened two AN threads on two other "inclusionists", in both of which I was involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say it smacked of circular reasoning. When we already have 17+ years of noticeboard decisions deeming consistent patterns of (especially topically obsessive) uncivil discourse and battleground/soapbox campaigning to be sanctionable, the fact that someone has two wikifriends who defend them no matter what is alleged (and in one case blatantly lie about the ANI filer), and the fact that some respondents to the discussion don't seem to closely follow either the evidence or the rationales, doesn't magically make the activities suddenly not sanctionable. They are sanctionable, unquestionably. It's just a matter of whether we should let it skate this time on the basis of promises by the subject of the ANI. I'm actually included do that in this case, since it's James500's first visit to ANI (that I know of) as the scrutiny subject.(When I was noobish I ended up here, too, for being sharp tongued. I learned to moderate and have contributed something like 140K non-automated edits to date. So I'm willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt. I don't like to call it rope, which is presumptive of eventual failure. I even tried to get that essay changed to stop making such presumptions but the snarky owners of the page will have none of it. They really like the tiny little niche they've made where CIVIL doesn't apply, even if you're applying it to people being sanctioned under CIVIL. It's really hypocritical.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think you're looking at it the wrong way: that applies to cases where the result will be eventual failure. In cases where it won't, it simply doesn't apply, so can be ignored. I've already stated why I think it applies here (James has made similar promises to me before, and broken about half of them almost immediately), but that's kinda beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it the wrong way is certainly possible. I hang upside-down when I take my vampire bat form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More than a bit off topic ...

Guys, this is a bit off-topic, but can we please avoid the use of small text here? I don't believe it's really appropriate for ANI; WP:ACCESSIBILITY and other policies make it clear that anything that makes text generally more of a challenge to read should be generally avoided--some of our editors have to work from devices with small displays and others have varying degrees of vision impairment. We sometimes allow this for superfluous "joke" content (I think it should probably be avoided even there), but for anything that touches upon (or even just supplements) discussion on editorial, policy, or conduct matters should be presented with a normal font and font size. Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that if you feel the need to say something small, it maybe doesn't need to be said at all! (Hey, that has great meter!) Though for the record, I thought your comments actually were perfectly relevant and consequential--which is the other reason I removed the small tags. All that said, I hope you don't mind. :) Snow let's rap 08:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Meh. If we think our <small> or {{small}} output is a bit too small, this should be discussed at WT:MOSACCESS, a target size to change it to agreed upon, and MediaWiki:Common.css changed to implement that. Many of us use one-step-smaller (not excessively small) text to mark up material that's pertinent to the conversation but maybe not to the central matter and likely not of interest to everyone (e.g., only to a few people in a sub-thread).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Respectfully, that's a short-sighted (pun not intended) view of this issue; you have no way of knowing who would want to see or respond to that content, and this essentially boils down to an equality of access issue (and not for nothing, but the WMF has actually adopted an official resolution that says that the policies of local projects are not allowed to override such concerns). I don't think that users with vision impairment or who can only edit from a mobile device are likely to view this as a "meh" issue. And yes, the ultimate place to discuss the policy language itself is WT:ACCESSIBILITY (indeed, there have been discussions there and other policy talk pages that have sharpened the language already, though clearly it needs to be more explicit), but it's been happening here a great deal lately, and this space is entirely about process and oversight, where equality of access is paramount to our objectives, so I just don't think it's appropriate. If there's something one is inclined to say that they are certain will be only of interest to a small handful of editors, probably it can be said elsewhere, but if they are going to say it here, it should be easily readable to all participants. You're a reasonable person, can't we agree that given the context and the concerns here, it makes sense to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to access to discussion about process? After-all, there are other and more elegant ways of emphasizing and de-emphasizing portions of a post if we think they are on the line of being important enough to mention here, but also likely to be secondary to the main thrust of one's comments. (I find that introductory clauses like "On a side note," or "Incidentally, I've found that..." work pretty well for this purpose.) Snow let's rap 00:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) This is still the wrong venue. Try WT:MOSACCESS. ANI isn't going institute a ban on <small>.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@James500: Please also apologize for your hounding of me and promise not to hound any more editors in the future, and don't ever call any other editors, even unspecified groups of hypothetical editors, "deletionists" again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

James500 avoiding such stuff in the future would be implicit in his agreement to cease uncivil activity and battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt only, I have never hounded Hijiri88. The allegation made in this thread that I did is not true. If the community wishes me to provide a detailed explanation of why I made any edits to which that allegation relates, I will do so. James500 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As for specific words, this ANI has nothing to do with whether the word "deletionist" is per se uncivil (it isn't). I've already indicated to James500, above, that his long string of highly detailed "I won't do that any more" promises may be a bit off the mark. He doesn't need to "part with" a particular word (even "nonsense" - we do, after all, have WP:NONSENSE for when something is truly nonsensical). It's about the use to which he's been such putting words; it's all about intent. To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals as a fallacious ad hominem denigration tactic. WP:HOTHEADS provides some good generalized advice about this sort of thing.

"Deletionist" absolutely is pejorative when used to pigeonhole individuals, to set them up as enemies to combat, and to dismiss everything they say as worthless without actually addressing any of it. James500 should respond to the substance of arguments people make, and respond to arguments he disagrees with as arguments, not as stupid or malicious people (or exaggerated hobgoblins) to whack with his stick. Contrast James500 abuse of "deletionist" in the way someone else might use misuse "fascist" as an argument to ridicule against anyone politically right-of-center, versus ANI respondents' use of "inclusionist" in references to James500's stated views and his non-constructive "keep everything" pattern at AFD. See the difference? It's the same distinction as "We shouldn't hire Amy because she's Baptist" versus "Amy's Baptist and has a dim doctrinal view of Catholic crucifixes." Radically different use and intent.

This is also relates to the third concern of this ANI, after incivility and soapbox/battleground behavior: using rivers of off-topic "hand-waving" to mire discussions in noise. It's another disruptive form of failure to address substance. James500 actually seems to have started absorbing these kind of distinctions, though it took us a lot of ANI mileage to get there. In closing: if you think someone's argument really is nonsense in light of what a policy or a guideline or sources actually say, then prove it, don't just label its author. Clearly provide what you're certain is the correct analysis.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with quite a bit of what you said there, in particular this: "To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals...", with especially strong agreement as to the italicized clause. However, the question is, when an editor employs these particular tactics, in these particular words, have they demonstrated incivility, hostility, or disruption such that they should be sanctioned by the community? Or have they simply embraced a form of irrational argument that weakens their standing among reasonable editors, but which otherwise falls within the scope of permissible commentary? In my opinion, it is more the latter than the former, at least as regards the specific instances that have been reported here thus far. And honestly, the comparison between "deletionist" and "fascist" is a pretty obvious false analogy that illustrates the fault line between the argument you are advancing and my own perspective on this; those two terms are not remotely identical in form or function and indeed, it is a rare context indeed where calling someone a fascist would not be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Almost any use of the word "fascist" in a dispute is going to be less acceptable than any use of the word "deletionist". Besides, isn't this point also moot--isn't that another habit which James has pledged to stop indulging in? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago (possibly several months) I decided to reduce my use of the word "deletionist" to a minimum. I will not use the word "deletionist" to describe editors. I do not believe in the existence of "deletionists". IIRC, I have nominated hundreds of articles for speedy deletion (an admin may have to confirm this as I may not have logged or patrolled all of them). Does that make me a "deletionist"? I do not think the word is meaningful. I immediately stopped using the word "nonsense" when Hijiri88 asked me not to use it at WT:NBOOK. I have been trying to accommodate the editors who are criticising me, and minimise conflict with them, for some time. I do not know if they are aware this. James500 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've indicated awareness of it twice, though I'm not sure what you've said mollifies others, due to concerns that the same stuff (or effectively the same, e.g. using different denigrating words, or a different tactic for undermining WP applying its well-accepted notability guidelines) will start up all over again after some period of laying low. It's basically a matter of "try it and see" versus "let's not go there", at this point. I have no objection to the former because sometimes people's habits will change after an ANI like this. But I don't think this ANI should be closed without at least a warning as to the central civility, discussion-bludgeoning, and gaming/lobbying-against-notability concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the WP:WALLOFTEXT, this has gone past Trout territory and straight into Whale.--Auric talk 14:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban I am under the impression that I am supposed to !vote on this. I do not want to edit notability or deletion discussions unless the community does not oppose my doing so. However, I would find the existence of a topic ban so humiliating and distressing that I would be prepared to do anything the community wishes (other than something even more humiliating or distressing) in order to avoid such a ban. A topic ban is therefore not necessary. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the commentary in this ANI case relates to other editors' perceptions, assumptions or speculation about why I made certain edits, what I was thinking at the time, what I meant by them, my motives, how I expected them to be understood by others and so on. This commentary is far from entirely accurate. If the community wishes, I will disclose what I was really thinking when I made those edits. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban is therefore not necessary. - I appreciate the sentiment that a formal sanction can be humiliating/distressing, and, at least speaking for myself, I would be happy if there were an outcome that addressed people's concerns expressed in this thread without effecting those kinds of feelings. If this could be taken as a self-imposed/voluntary topic ban on notability/deletion to be documented in the close, I, for one, would not see the need for something formally imposed/logged at this time. On reflection, given the other assurances made in this thread, I would be satisfied if it were specifically notability-related and deletion-related policy/guideline/essay pages in particular (in other words, it would not extend to e.g. individual deletion discussions themselves). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This would work for me as well. A number of James500's AfDs are fine, as he is adept at finding sources, especially on topics relating to books. I would mention for him to be careful on AfD's on other topics, where I would welcome his vote as long as they are specific and explain why the topic would pass notability guidelines, using available sources to do so - so no quoting WP:PRESERVE as policy. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume what you mean to say is "no quoting WP:PRESERVE as a policy relevant to an article notability determination"?; WP:PRESERVE itself is policy, and a somewhat important and broadly supported editorial priority. It's just that it clearly, by its own terms, only applies to content within an article, not a given subject's notability. If James has been quoting it in AfD as a presumption for not removing article's, I could see why some would find that vexing. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have never cited WP:PRESERVE as an argument for keeping an article, or as an argument that a topic was notable. I only cited it, in conjuction with WP:ATD, as an argument for merger. It may be, however, that other editors have misunderstood the intended meaning of my !votes. James500 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've read through a number of your AfDs. !Votes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Imprimatur (an "oppose" vote) says the content cannot be deleted because a viable merge candidate exists per WP:PRESERVE. Or here, where Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Trench_(novel) (another oppose vote) where it claims the page is "ineligible for deletion" because it has a proper merge candidate, yet there is no "merge" vote or discussion of notability of the topic - just that it can't be "deleted." There are several others as well. While your argument is clearer now, this is still an extremely confusing case of wikilawyering. SportingFlyer talk 10:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of those AfDs are old and use a form of !vote that I have deprecated and would not use today. The rationale I gave in the AfD for "The Trench" would not happen today. I would have found the book reviews that were cited in that AfD. I no longer use the word "oppose" as a way of indicating that I am have no objection to a page being merged/redirected. James500 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, geez, that's obviously not a valid rationale. I could easily write an article on my mom's dinner with the Beatles in the late '60s (a dinner party organized by the head of Norman Petty Studio, where Buddy Holly recorded, when the Fab Four were on a US tour and in the Southwest for some reason – maybe on their way between major cities, unless they actually did play in Albuquerque). This trash could not be kept on the basis that it would be technically possible to merge it into The Beatles or some other article about them. If it's trash, it gets taken out. What PRESERVE means is that if we have sourced, encyclopedic material (passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc.) about a topic that actually is notable at another page, but this material is in a page on a non-notable topic, then it should be merged not deleted, when this is feasible. It's not a keep rationale at AfD. And ideas like "this would be non-indiscriminate if the topic were notable" doesn't work. E.g., you can't merge the breed history of a non-notable alleged breed to List of dog breeds or Collie since the history of a "backyard breeder" experiment is indiscriminate trivia in the context of a broader topic like breed groups. Mention is often appropriate, though, especially for completeness (e.g. don't exclude a non-notable band from the list of who performed at a notable music festival, even if you obviously can't dump their bio in there). Context is king.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You should have a look at some of Andrew's "keep" !votes sometime; he frequently cites PRESERVE as though it applied to one-sentence sub-stubs, content-forks and completely unsourced nonsense. Honestly, if it weren't for James's rhetoric, I would have next to no problem with his AFD activity (I would say I agree with somewhere between 70% and 90% of his !votes in principle); the same can definitely not be said for Andrew. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it the other editor's AfD/notability stuff is or becomes problematic, that's best saved for another ANI, if it comes to that. Hopefully just discussion, and observing ANIs like this one, and not seeing one's AfD !votes taken seriously, and so on, will shift the behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for advice

I would like advice as to what I should do from an uninvolved admin. Should I respond to the allegations, or apologise for saying the word "nonsense" or for saying anything else that I actually said, or offer other concessions, or wait and see, or something else? Please tell me what to do. I am absolutely terrified and in enormous distress. James500 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You could apologize for all the disruption demonstrated above. Are you really claiming that saying the word "nonsense" is all the wrong you've done? Because if you are that recalcitrant in your unwillingness to abide by our policies I imagine the number of editors who think the solution is an indef block will rise substantially... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice from an uninvolved admin is pretty much what this process is for: the closer (more often than not an admin) either imposes a community-suggested sanction that keeps the editor out of this kind of trouble, or a warning that advises how to avoid ending up back here again for the same issue (or – should it apply – summarizes that the community take on the matter is that the reported editor did nothing wrong and the filer is being a bonehead or has a nefarious motive).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's independent advice at WP:ANI advice and this generally seems quite sound. As the issue here is that James500 is accused of being prolix, points 6, 7, 10, 11, 16 seem most appropriate. In summary:

6. Keep it brief.

7. Don't badger

10. Keep calm

11. Don't get upset

16. Speak moderately.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Davidson above gives good advice, but deliberately doesn't leave edsums explaining why an edit took place. This is considered incredibly rude by most editors, so don't you forget. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Modified to reflect reality by Roxy, the Prod. wooF 12:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not leaving an edit summary is "Incredibly rude"? I think not, but in any case, it's specifically not required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall an editor getting site-banned at one point where their lack of edit summaries was seen as disruptive, they were placed under an editing restriction requiring them to use edit summaries, which they initially abode by but then started to ignore. It's kinda off-topic here except that Roxy recently opened an ANI thread on Andrew requesting he be banned from de-prodding, and was overruled by a large number of editors claiming that we don't ban people from doing things that policy allows them to do. Anyway, sometimes editors go out of their way not to leave any form of edit summary (even an automatic one indicating which section of the page they edited), and while that's not forbidden, I do think it's a pretty clear sign of someone trying to hide something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure would be nice if this could return the actual topic of this ANI. While the advice above from Andrew D. isn't wrong, by any means, it only addresses a fraction of the problem, the other big chunk being the activism against WP's notability guidelines themselves. This has to stop. Normally I'm inclined to take someone at their word when they say it will stop, but we have indications that this editor has made similar promises before, laid low for a short while, then gone right back to their anti-consensus campaigning. If this doesn't resolve now for a T-ban, we'll likely be right back here in a few weeks or months re-reviewing the same evidence plus more just like it and then issue a T-ban. Worse could happen, but it's rather inefficient, since the problems are unmistakable and long-term, and the end result predictable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've read a lot of the above but can you point me (on my talk page if it makes more sense if it's going to be long) to where he's made similar promises before? My remembered experience with James has purely been on book AfDs. I only tend to weigh in on those when I think they're keeps and have seen alignment there. I can't recall him being off base in book AfDs that I thought should be deleted or in areas where I tend to more often be vocally on the delete side (e.g. articles about organizations/corporations). His gaming of the tracker is no good and so I would like to see a promise to stop doing that (which some have indicated above has already happened) but pending that evidence of promises not kept in the past I would suggest a close reflecting James' promises and we move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been bolding my AfD !votes for some time (probably several months now), and will continue doing so if I am allowed to continue to edit AfDs. James500 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly described the string of events that led to that development above: James claimed that use of the AFD stats tool was "wikihounding", I asked him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 3522 (and a few other places before that) to bold your !votes, you responded with Are you going to stop trolling and violating WP:HOUND, or shall I just put Template:Retired on my user page? Your behaviour has completely exhausted my patience. If you plan to continue trolling and wikihounding, please let me know now, because I will simply leave.[44], I responded on my talk page (as I know James would blank anything I left on his without indicating whether or not he had read it), and James pretended to rage-quit the encyclopedia. I'm guessing someone probably told him off-wiki that continuing to evade scrutiny despite being asked to stop would probably result in him being indeffed, so hedecided to finally give in once he came back a week later. This whole thing is why it's so ironic that the editors who are trying to defend him are doing so with the AFD stats tool he hates so much. (And how one of them is actually insisting that I'm the one making bogus accusations of hounding: James only stopped accusing me of hounding when I accidentally happened to notice that he had been hounding me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: I'm a little torn on all of this. Some of the editors who are here accusing James of tendentiousness are community members whose opinions I respect, and in general, I am pretty much for a significantly higher standard of civility than has been generally enforced in recent years. And yet, I can't help feel a little underwhelemed by a lot of the evidence that has been presented against James here. I'm left to presume that there must be a lot more context that was not included here to explain these concerns, but I can only speak to the matters that were raised here.

To wit, I'll start with "nonsense": using this word, especially with regularity, certainly doesn't paint the picture of the most open-minded or collaborative contributor, I will grant that. Similar to the opinion I expressed above to Hijiri about "deletionist", it is the sort of thing which I tend to view as weakening one's view rather than augmenting it--at least when used too casually. But is it generally outside the scope of civil discourse? No, I would not say that it is, typically. I mean, context is queen, so of course I can think of any number of instances where it would be overly aggressive/hostile, no doubt. But few, if any, of the instances raised here would qualify as brightline violations of WP:CIV. And I think I'm often perceived as being nitpicky about adherence to WP:CIV, so if I am not convinced, it's probably unlikely that a sanction for this would be forthcoming. In any event, James has chosen to address concerns about this by agreeing not to lean on the term anymore, so that seems a closed issue, unless the proposition is that he will not follow through.

As to his POV on WP:NOTABILITY...it's dumb. It's short-sighted. It's completely infeasible. It would, in my opinion, should the community ever adopted it, invite such a deluge of special interest editing and--shall I say it?--nonsense that the reputation, quality, and utility of this project might never recover. It's a poor theory, is my point. But is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion? I don't see how it would be. Bad ideas get forwarded here every day, but we rely on the consensus process to filter them, and that's usually pretty reliable when they are such bad ideas and where the change is so fundamental that it would need a huge amount of support to generate inertia for the change, as would be the case here. This site is a laboratory of ideas if ever one existed, being the largest collaborative, bottom-up endeavour of its sort in human history. To an extent, it is healthy to have a certain number of people at the extremes; or at least, it's a an indication of health in our consensus process and culture of open-mindedness. Extreme positions when it comes to editorial matters are only a concern when they are exercised in bad faith or when the party expressing them cannot accept overwhelming consensus. Now I can conceive that maybe there has been such bad-faith/disruptive behaviour associated with regard to James that is driving the concerns here, but if that's the case, the evidence has not been well presented, despite some very long posts with many diffs. I certainly think numerous of the comments presented suggest James has lost the plot vis-a-vis notability and "deletionism", but I don't see glaring problems with how he presents those opinions, which is what we would need for something to be actionable here.

Of the comments which do touch upon behavioural issues needing addressing, most can be found in Rhododendrites' large-ish post above. Things like refusing to indent, or follow standard !vote formatting are in my opinion more significant problems than they may seem at first blush. However, I'm not sure how the course of action Rhododendrites suggests (endorsing SMcCandlish's proposed topic ban on notability) addresses those issues. In general I think all of the complaints/frustrations various community members have with James (which may be perfectly legitimate in and of themselves) have been amalgamated into one monolithic sense of frustration, but we'd need to tease them out again before action can be taken. And notably James seems to be making an effort to make concessions above. (Admitedly I don't know him well enough to gauge his level of sincerity though). I'm not going to !vote "oppose" on the notability TBAN just yet, because, as I say, I trust the perspectives of editors who have raised concerns here, so I'm open to being won over. But I'd have to see a strong showing of obstructionism, rather than just evidence that his views lay at an extreme. And I say this as someone who is at the diametrically opposite side of this issue--I think SNGs are far, far too permissive with regard to the content they let in. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've addressed much of this (before seeing it) in a post above about this not being about particular words. The other main theme of this, "is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion?", isn't what has been under discussion or what the evidence shows. That is a long-term pattern of railing against Wikipedia having and apply notability guidelines at all and (an issue raised by others, not me, because I did not "diff dig" very deep nor outside of talk pages) trying to thwart them at AFD (by arguing to keep everything) since he has zero traction in getting the N guidelines deleted or substantively changed. If I recall, we've only identified a single case in which James500 has agreed with an article's deletion despite having made himself an AFD fixture, and even if there are more it's something he virtually never does (he's gone out of his way to hide this by gaming the AFD stats). This is in fact disruptive, of Wikipedia operating the way the community wants it to operate. There is no "amalgamation" of unrelated concerns in this ANI. James500's problematic editing is all notability, all the time. In looking at the last month of James500's edits, I could not find a single case of him being uncivil, abusing process, derailing discussions, misrepresenting the meaning of a policy or guideline, or engaging in "WP is wrong and must change, or else" behavior in any other topic area. It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not !vote to keep all of the articles at AfD. I generally ignore AfDs about articles on topics that I consider potentially non-notable, because I do not have the time or resources or patience to pursue their deletion. In particular, I lack access to certain paywalled databases and certain sites that my browser security settings, which I do not know how to modify, will not let me. The most that I can usually do when I find an article that I consider potentially non-notable is to report that I have looked at Google and found nothing, as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurts Publishing (where my comment was responsible for the deletion of the article; in that case I was unable to access HighBeam, therefore I could not complete a WP:BEFORE search). The reason that my accuracy rate is above 81% is that on the order of 81%+ of the topics I !vote to keep actually are notable within the true meaning of the guidelines. The idea that I am trying to undermine the guidelines fails to take into account the fact that I am only one person and I am completely incapable of doing that, because the other participants would shout me down. James500 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits." Can I trouble you to re-read my comments a second time and tell me if you still think this is the major thrust of my arguments, because, respectfully, I do not think that captures the general sentiment of my observations above and if that is the message you took from it, I don't think you read it as carefully as you might have. Nowhere that I can see have I impled that anyone has been mean or mistreated James, and I can assure you that no such perception coloured my interpretation of their (or your) evidence. And I think I did a pretty heavy (indeed, verbose) accounting of why I just do not believe you have made your case for the sanction you are proposing with the conduct evidence you have presented here thus far. As to your more immediate argument: there is no policy that says James may not !vote "keep" in 99% (nor indeed 100%) of AfDs he participates in, nor is there any principle of community consensus which holds that he is being WP:disruptive if he !votes in service of an extreme editorial philosophy, even if he does so consistently and in a way where it seems improbable to another editor that he is making a full accounting of policy as it applies to those facts. The cure to that sort of non-nuanced, sloppy argumentation is that, if his opinion does not jive with the policies as they apply to the specifics of that particular content issue, it can be discounted. And if he makes a habit of it, other community members will be of the habit of dismissing his perspectives.

At present, I feel your arguments about James' conduct blur the lines between the kinds of outright disruptive behaviours we must attempt to control and expression of more subjective, a priori editorial perspectives and priorities, which are not in our purview to regulate--not as a consensus on this project always has (and in my opinion, has needed to) operate. Again, I do not dismiss the possibility that there is more to the story here than has been presented so far, and that I may not be convinced that some sort of community action is warranted here. But I for one would need to see evidence of conduct that is of a substantially different character (that is, constituting more blatant gamesmanship or incivility) than has been presented thus far. And the response of several other editors here give me to believe I am not alone in this. Indeed, I believe I have expressed substantially more openness to the possibility that you have a legitimate complaint here, than some others have, and the entire point of my last post was to try to lay out the kind of conduct I would need to see in order to endorse such a substantial sanction as a TBAN from all things notability. As to my reference to amalgamation--my point is that I view certain isolated behaviours discussed here as easier to handle individually. For example, the indenting and bolding of !votes. But on some of those particulars, James has already given ground. I doubt very much, however, that he will concede to removing himself from all discussion impinging up notability (his presumably snarky comment to that effect above not withstanding. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your original point; it just seemed to be (and still does) focused on whether having an opinion and expressing it is, or is central to, the issues of this ANI, which isn't the case. It's just about behavior patterns and their effects. No one's critical of James500 for disliking WP's notability system or proposing that it be changed or scrapped, but for tirelessly trying to undermine it and being terrible to other editors while doing so. The difference is meaningful. Constantly pushing the same idea after consensus has declined to accept it is a priori disruptive if it continues indefinitely. "There is no policy against [x]" isn't an argument often accepted here in a case like this, because there actually is a policy against it (no matter what "it" or "[x]" is, in narrow terms of a specific type of action) when it becomes disruptive. And ANI decisions are not [usually, and we hope] based on lawyering over the exact wording of policies anyway, but an assessment of whether the reported party is exhibiting at least a baseline of competence in collaborative editing.

So, it has nothing to do with whether James500 is entitled to an opinion about how good our notability guidelines are, but whether we're going to be really rudely brow-beaten with it until the end of time. Anyway, going round and round in argument with you isn't my intent. I do understand your take on the matter more clearly now, though still find myself disagreeing with it, mainly because the "certain isolated behaviours" are not isolated, but part of a general pattern of anti-notability grandstanding. As you suggest, he may be unlikely to actually remove himself from notability discussions despite saying he would. But, worse can happen than having to re-examine the same and additional evidence at a later ANI if the pattern resumes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Did you mean XfD or AfD instead of ANI in these cases "thwart them at ANI" and "an ANI fixture"? Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and will blame lack of coffee. I fixed that in the original post (and fixed lack of coffee in mah belleh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Close

• Close I believe there has been overwhelming evidence that James has been regularly disruptive in the past (even the very recent past). However, in the troubling areas he has already taken aboard the criticism before this ANI filing or agreed to work on them as this discussion has proceeded. Specifically the promises James has made I would hope to see noted in a close would be: avoiding walls of text (especially in notability discussion), following indenting conventions, appropriately formatting XfD !votes, and that he will not engage in tendentious discussions and labeling of other editors. I don't blame SmCCandlish and Rhododendrites for reaching their wits end. Were James not willing to make what I think are credible promises of change some measure of sanction would be appropriate. Instead we should see if he can live by his promises; if he can't something more than the tbans being discussed would strike mas appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I basically agree with the above, although I'm perhaps a bit more skeptical than Barkeep about whether the promises made by James in this thread will be kept in the long term: my first interaction with him in April ended with him saying I will refrain from making comments about types of behaviour or points of view in order to make you happy. I apologise unreservedly if my comments appeared to anyone to refer to editors, as that was certainly not my intention. Clearly, I should have worded them far more carefully., my second interaction with him consisted of him comparing AFD nominators to vandals, and my third consisted (summary diff; click all the diffs inside the diff for the actual evidence) of him following me to a bunch of discussions while hypocritically accusing me, about a half-dozen times, of hounding him, so I'm naturally loath to believe him when he issues essentially the same contrite-seeming apology and promise to do better again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's more "on the record" this time. Anyway, I'm okay with Barkeep49's draft close of sorts. And even if it should turn sour, I'd be fine with "something more than the tbans being discussed" not being what we leap to; we typically use escalating sanctions, and a topic ban is often very effective at both preventing the disruption while retaining the editor and (less often) reforming the editor's behavior and permitting an eventual return to the topic. PS: I think Rhodo and Hijiri may have been at wit's end from long interaction with James500 that I wasn't aware of. For my part, this was a routine civility-and-soapboxing-I-see-right-now ANI. My personal history with James500 doesn't go back more than one recent thread at at WT:NBOOK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd support such a closure. (No preference whether this or my earlier support.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC since this is clearly "talked out" at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I also support such a closure. As I've noted, James500 does do a good job finding sources on book-related AfDs, and he was very helpful during a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles. Problems exist, but they're fixable, and my hope going forward is all of James' !votes at AfD will be strong and meaningful (and, to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the !votes which cite incorrect notability guidelines, or ones which are overly wikilawyered as noted above, without commenting on sourcing). SportingFlyer talk 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: By a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles, you wouldn't be referring to Tyw7 (talk · contribs)'s Shadowowl (talk · contribs)'s (good-faith, controversial at worst, per the lengthy discussion that took place on this page at the time) nomination earlier this year of a bunch of shitty one-sentence non-articles created by Starzynka (talk · contribs)? I found James's conduct there to be pretty poor: the actual reason virtually all of the pages needed to be redirected/deleted (I recently explained why the latter may be preferable in some cases) had nothing to do with notability, and so James's gathering of sources, where he did as much, was not helpful unless he actually expanded the article into something meaningful, which he has done from time to time but certainly a lot less than simply showing up to the AFD and !voting "keep" without consideration of our deletion policy and what will be best for readers. If you were referring to that incident, I think you should probably strike it, and if you were not you should probably clarify, since it certainly looks like you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC) (mod. 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC) )

@Hijiri88: I'm not familiar with that particular incident, or it's long forgotten. I was thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Družba Pere Kvržice and a whole boatload of other articles, particularly foreign language articles, that were nominated nearly in bulk without a WP:BEFORE search earlier this year. SportingFlyer talk 08:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Sorry, that was what I meant. I commented in a few of them, but forgot the name of the nominator; the one that sticks in my mind more than the others is In der Falle, which Shadowowl initially nominated but botched and withdrew -- when I checked the one I commented on now it was the one that was re-nominated by another editor. The "BEFORE search" you refer to doesn't apply to one-sentence content-forks where notability is not the issue, as it was not with any of the 100+ articles Shadowowl nominated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I stand by my comments about those nominations. I also have no idea why a WP:BEFORE search wouldn't apply in this situation, because a lot of the foreign language articles were nominated on failing SNG and GNG indicators. A large number of these passed notability guidelines, but in different languages, and I remember James500 being helpful in saving them. SportingFlyer talk 09:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I criticized ShadowOwl at the time for the awkward wording of the nominations, but it was clear enough to anyone who really cared enough to look that "notability" (let alone specifics of GNG or SNG) was not the reason for nominating. "Notability" is just so prevalent a concept that the word gets bandied about where it doesn't really belong. An argument could easily be made that what he actually meant was "This subject is not notable enough that in the decade or so this article has been on Wikipedia anyone has bothered to come by and write anything about it" (and I'm pretty sure when I did make this argument at the previous ANI on him he agreed with me), and that's a simple truism, regardless of whether this or that topic actually meets GNG, so your continuing to refuse to drop the stick on it strikes me as a little odd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise I was holding a stick, to be honest. I'm just glad a number of notable foreign language stubs weren't deleted, and I'm trying to draw attention to the fact the Keep votes James made which discuss certain articles passing WP:NBOOK are good !votes, even if those books were in different langauges. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

James's !votes in those AFDs did not help improve the encyclopedia, and those among the Starzynka-created non-articles that were kept as opposed to redirected despite nothing being done to fix them are now something of a blotch on the encyclopedia. Yes, James is not the worst offender when it comes to auto-!voting keep in AFDs and then (at best) not lifting a finger to improve the articles or (at worst) actively hindering their improvement (that honour belongs to Andrew, IMO), but every single one of those AFDs where he !voted keep without himself doing any of the heavy lifting to fix the article and make it not a content-fork was ... well, I wouldn't call for him to be sanctioned just for making some disruptive !votes, but you can hardly use them to defend him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My entire point has been James500 has been capable of making good AfD votes, and I hope all of them are good going forward as a result of this ANI. I obviously still disagree with you on the notability of those articles and you're taking me to task for having a perfectly valid opinion just because you disagree with it. Let's please move on. SportingFlyer talk 07:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I obviously still disagree with you on the notability of those articles and you're taking me to task for having a perfectly valid opinion just because you disagree with it. You can't be serious. Did you read anything I wrote above? Where did I say "the articles (sic) aren't notable"? Or anything approaching that? You should strike the above comment, lest your competence to continue editing this encyclopedia be brought into question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not striking the comment, and I'm shocked you're suggesting competency issues based off of this exchange, and I still have no idea why you have decided to turn into an argument. I remember this situation as a user bulk nominating articles for AfD, mostly foreign language stubs, basically as fast as you could refresh the page and without doing any semblance of a WP:BEFORE search. At no point during the AfD process was it clear that the "crappy bot article" the nominator discussed was created by the same user and needed to be deleted en masse. Unfortunately, a number of those stubs were indeed notable, including several articles for notable Croatian books and films which are in the national Croatian archives. I specifically remember James500 making helpful keep votes during this discussion, citing NBOOK for books on different languages, which are valid !keep votes and demonstrates that James500 can in fact make positive contributions to AfD. I mentioned this in order to colour my comments above where I was generally in favour of a ban with the general understanding there was a problem here. Also there's no policy I've seen that says keep !voters must expand the articles they !vote keep on, nor do I think these articles are generally a "scourge" on the encyclopedia, as the Croatian ones which were nominated were clearly notable and just needed someone to add references showing they passed WP:GNG. While I am making the assumption that other languages which were nominated would have the same problem as the one I'm most familiar with, and maybe the entire remainder of the bot articles are a "scourge," I don't remember that to be the case. SportingFlyer talk 09:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember this situation as a user bulk nominating articles for AfD, mostly foreign language stubs, basically as fast as you could refresh the page and without doing any semblance of a WP:BEFORE search. Your memory is faulty. None of them were "foreign language", all of them were stubs (technically WP:SUBSTUBs), and BEFORE (at least in terms of "searching" for sources) didn't apply because the actual deletion criterion they met was that they were content forks with no value in their current form: some editors, apparently including you, read the issue as being about notability, and while the nominator's initial, clumsy, wording supported this interpretation, later clarifications, including the lengthy ANI discussion, did not. The fact that you apparently read something in my above messages to you as implying I shared your belief that the issue was one of "notability", but that I thought the topics were not notable, does indeed bring your competence into question, as I have been clear throughout that that is not the case, and your refusal to retract or apologize for this despite your being wrong having been thoroughly demonstrated makes me seriously question your good faith. I have no idea why you have turned this into an argument, honestly; you could have just accepted that you and I have different memories of the event (you seem to have only commented twice in the ANI discussions, so I wouldn't blame you for having had a completely different perspective of the whole affair) and moved on, but you seem intent on trying to get under my skin with this IDHT "You think the topics aren't notable" act. (BTW, this comment would appear to put you on a fairly remote fringe of the community when it comes to handling nonsense one-sentence non-articles: these articles should be kept as they pass notability guidelines is completely out of line with policy; the standard view, if there is one, is these topics might merit articles that should be kept, as they pass notability guidelines, but these "articles" should not be kept as they contain less information than our readers could get from a single word in a list embedded in a larger article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm not trying to get under your skin. You asked me to strike my initial response, which I don't think is a reasonable request based on my participation. It's now clear we have very different memories of what happened. In one of my three diffs you've posted, I link to a number of articles which were nominated for deletion by ShadowOwl which were NOT Starzynka-created bot articles. All of these were notable and I believe all of these were kept. It looks like Ellis Coliseum is still a single-sentence article though, I'll work on that one. And by "foreign language" I mean the primary language of the film or book isn't English where notability is a little bit harder to establish. (I'm clearly not suggesting we keep non-English pages on the English encyclopedia, nor have I ever suggested - or at least remember suggesting - we bulk-keep a bunch of stub articles.) My role in this event was trying to save the articles which were actually notable. I don't appreciate being labeled as being on a "fairly remote fringe of the community" when my posts on the ANI thread are in line with the other users who opened the thread, both of whom I respect. SportingFlyer talk 11:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You listed five articles, out of well over a hundred, and what I wrote above applied, at the time of nomination, at least two of them (one of which you only now, four months later, expanded beyond a single sentence [yes, it was technically three sentences, but would have been better written if the three were one]); of the other three, one has since been redirected (read: what I said should have been the short-term measure even if the topics were notable was actually implemented) and the last consisted exclusively (and still largely consists) of unsourced BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You were right, one was redirected at the AfD I linked. But both of the stadiums - the three sentence articles - didn't receive a single delete !vote at AfD apart from ShadowOwl, and a number of the other nominations weren't good nominations. And none of this actually matters for the point I was originally trying to make. Let's please leave it here. SportingFlyer talk 12:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Word count

• The issue here is being prolix, right? So far, this section is over 130Kb – over 20,000 words of verbiage. Please see WP:POT, WP:SAUCE and WP:NOTFORUM, which states "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, the issues are being uncivil, derailing discussions with off-topic rants (some of which are long, but that's beside the point), and lobbying against consensus-accepted guidelines. You would know that if you'd skimmed even the original post, instead of deciding it would be clever (it's not) to vent about the length of the discussion because you think it's ironic that anyone early on mentioned post length in some context or another. What you've done here is an example of WP:NOTFORUM; this page doesn't exist for you to impress people with your jokey wit.

  Please see also WP:CHUNK in particular: If a noticeboard action, proposal, or other bunch of process requires lengthy discussion, then it does, and that isn't wrong. This is a process page, not an article or its talk page. ANI in particular is not about the task of creating an encyclopedia, it's a meta-process for deciding whether certain editors and/or their behavior are impeding that goal, and if so then what to do about it. And the length of this discussion was quite productive; what probably would have resulted in sanctions like a topic-ban (if this had been tersely listed diffs followed by knee-jerk one-liner !votes) instead looks likely to result in a negotiated agreement to desist from certain unconstructive habits. That's a good thing for all concerned. In short, if you don't like long ANI threads, don't read them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, I hardly think it's fair to tell the winner of WAM 2017 that he is not "staying on the task of creating an encyclopedia" when he is unable to participate in WAM 2018 to the same degree due to his being too busy IRL (I told SMcC on my talk page, but ... translating 100,000 Japanese characters, in essentially three weeks, while also working another full-time job: I'd like to see you do that) and only participated in this thread (and the other one on you a couple weeks back) because of (a) a sense of obligation to the project and (b) other people having opened them without consulting me. The fact that someone, quite possibly you or James (you have a demonstrable history of "good hand / bad hand" sockpuppetry and James is ... everything said above), chose the other day to log out of their account and post a harassing message about me that creeped me the fuck out would honestly be enough of an excuse never to edit Wikipedia again, and it's not even the worst I've seen this year. So don't ever talk down to me like that again. EVER. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I'm still waiting for an apology for the above harassing, off-topic message from you. You should consider yourself extremely lucky I didn't immediately open another thread on you as soon as you posted it, instead choosing to give you a chance to apologize; your refusing to do so despite continuing to make disruptive auto-keep !votes on AFDs despite copyright problems having already been demonstrated is ... well, it should not be allowed. If you are not going to own up to and apologize for your disruptive edits, you should leave the project, not just go somewhere else and make more disruptive edits there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW, I'm increasingly certain that the IP was neither you nor James, but actually the last disruptive editor both of you showed up to defend because, as far as both of you are concerned, an "inclusionist" editor fights with a "deletionist" editor, the former is right no matter what else they do, and the latter is in the wrong. Yeah, anyone could show up on his talk page and pretend to be him, but how many would know about his penchant for calling me a self-proclaimed "japanese expert"? You have not apologized for your defense of that toxic editor who made building the encyclopedia a hellish experience for me for months, nor for your current defense of this toxic editor, and you dare tell me that I'm not focused enough on building the encyclopedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced eleven days of degrading public humiliation and behaviour that I find wholly unbearable here. There are a number of things that I should probably say, but I am not in any condition to say them now as a result of what I have experienced here. In fact I am finding it incredibly difficult to edit at all. I do not know if I will be able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia at all after what has taken place here and the effect it has had on me. James500 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced eleven days of degrading public humiliation and behaviour that I find wholly unbearable here. Believe me: as someone who's gone through all of this and much, much more, I can tell you with confidence that what JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) subjected me to both on-wiki and in real life dwarfs even the worst of that, while the lightest of that was far worse than what you've been subjected to (note that that thread was several thousand bytes longer than this one, despite having been open for only six days and involved only one of the project's most verbose users -- me -- as opposed to this threads four -- SMcC, you, Snow Rise and me), and you chose to belittle/dismiss my experience with that editor for no reason other than to get under my skin and only backed down when I asked an admin to tell you off for it. You can't go around abusing and harassing anyone you don't like, then the moment they make even a tiny attempt to call you out on it cry foul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

James500, let's not be hyperbolic and theatrical. If you weren't being a WP:JERK to people, regularly, and disrupting normal Wikipedian business by defying its policies and guidelines over and over and over again, then we wouldn't be here at ANI about it. Complaints of being embarrassed and bummed out are not some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card (not in real life, and not here). Your own actions are what led here. No one is going to buy into any kind of "being criticized is intolerable so I'm going to quit in a huff" act. Your antics were begging for attention, and have received it. Let this be an object lesson in the principle that trying to force Wikipedia to focus on you and your hard-pushed viewpoint is something to pursue at your own peril. PS: I have no idea why this is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This and the IQ125 sections make me wonder whether there's consensus over when {{DNAU}} should be used in ANI threads rather than bumping or having to unarchive if it's autoarchived... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made for that, I think. There was another discussion closed yesterday, which a party tried to re-open, only to be reverted by an admin, despite a live !vote on conduct which seemed to have reached a consensus, albeit with a limited-to-moedrate number of participants. Now, my intent here is not to encourage that discussion be resurrected--the revert was by an admin (and a fairly respected one) in good faith, and it was arguably the appropriate action, all context considered. But it does raise the conundrum you tangentially allude to there: if parties anxious to see a formal close (or, looking to less good faith side of things, eager to preserve the battleground) become obsessive about thwarting the autoarchive function, they will begin to make additional (and generally discursively counter-productive) little "observations"--or outright accusations, or new evidence, whatever they need to do in order to rationalize an action that is really about bumping the thread. That would not be healthy for the readability and tone of our discussions here. Or, "is not healthy", I should say, since I have enough faith in the perceptiveness of my fellow contributors here to assume that we all notice that this happens here quite a bit already, even though traditionally we do allow un-archiving in many contexts.

Anyway, the place to discuss your tag proposal would be Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. You'd have to get the admin corps (or at least the greater portion that volunteers here) on board though, since they will ultimately be the ones who would have to enforce the standard in cases of dispute. I expect some will be instantly against it because it will be likely to draw discussions out uselessly, more often than not. That's a reasonable concern and something the specifics of your proposal should strive to address. But both options have their weaknesses, and I think there is even less support for the third of the obvious alternative approaches, setting a default number of days. I think it would be difficult to find consensus for your proposed change (there's a strong trend towards maintenance of the status quo in how ANI operates, because of the extreme plurality of voices, often attached to very tightly held positions) but not impossible. Food for thought, anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a good point about the potentially undesirable effect of continuing to add as a way of bumping. I don't think that every thread should have a DNAU, but when formal closure is requested and it's clearly a thread that can be closed (and would cause more disruption to rehash it than to close it), it seems like a really obvious measure. We'll see what happens, I guess. I added it. If this is controversial, someone can remove it (hopefully with reasoning, since I cannot think of one). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced a deterioration in my health during and because of this ANI case. I must therefore protest at the use of DNUA to keep this thread open till at least the 3rd of January without regard for the effect this will have on me (and presumably the next step will be to extend that deadline ad infinitum). I can see no reason to assume this thread will be closed in a reasonable time or at all (the admins have already had more than a reasonable time), and it cannot remain open forever. James500 (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

RefDesk regular giving unsourced (and incorrect) answers

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

I would have tested the waters at the RefDesk talk page first, but something similar was shut down a couple months ago, so here goes. Before arguments along the lines of "the RefDesk is an unmanageable mess, the only fix is killing it with fire, and it is unfair to single one editor out" come out, I would like to point out that a previous RefDesk case lead to a topic ban that, IMO, greatly improved the refdesk atmosphere (StuRat was infinitely worse than Kharon is though).

Kharon's contributions on the science Ref Desk have been mildly disruptive. Their answers are overwhelmingly their own speculation with no reference provided. Because they clearly have some scientific knowledge, they often make useful contributions, but when that mode of operation goes wrong they confidently assert complete bollocks. Since in many (all?) cases it would take about 10s of reading the relevant Wikipedia article to check, they certainly can improve. I believe they can be a great asset to the RefDesk, but they need to amend their behavior. They have been told by multiple RefDesk regulars that some of their answers were not useful, yet have not measurably changed. I am looking for (in decreasing order of preference) one of:

1. a formal warning to base their answers off reliable sources
2. a formal restriction on posting unsourced stuff; for instance Kharon must not post on the ref desk anything else than (1) direct answers to questions with a relevant source attached, (2) clarification of previous answers (their own or others'), or (3) requests for clarification of the question.
3. a very short, shot across the bow TBAN from refdesk.

Onto evidence. You could peruse their contributions on RefDesk to get a feel, but here are permalinks to their last 10 substantial RefDesk contribs with my analysis; from my experience the average worth of contributions is the same it has been in recent months. In the interest of transparency, I have locked horns with them in that thread (which IMO is a good example of their tendency to confidently assert complete bollocks based on a superficial understanding but I would not expect someone unfamiliar with graduate-level knowledge of thermodynamics to understand why).

1. [45] is OK-ish: "walking on Mars is impossible because radiation" is quite a strong interpretation of the question and sources, but it is based on an article they cite.
2. [46] is not OK: they contradict our referenced article, that previous posters have linked to before, with zero argument or reference.
3. [47] Their first contribution here is absolutely not OK (speculation without source, and wrong speculation to boot), but at least they apologized for it later
4. [48] That is not OK: the claim that shampoos cause allergies, at the very least, needs a ref; plus, advising someone to make their own shampoo by diluting formic acid is not a good idea.
5. [49] That is OK (could use a reference, but well)
6. [50] I guess that xenophobic cliché is an attempt at humour, so meh
7. [51] Not OK: speculation without a source. Maybe it is correct speculation; I do not know, but I do not care. Artillery is mostly used against soft target at least needs a source.
8. [52] Not OK. The first paragraph is meh but the second is irresponsible. Yeah, germs are everywhere, but you will still get sick(er) by eating feces; so don't say stuff like this to internet randos without qualifying the statement.
9. [53] Clearly they made zero research or googling before typing, but the result turns out to be fairly good.
10. [54] Arguably off-topic but decent information to give.

That's 3-4 good ones out of 10. Maybe the minimum acceptable good-to-bad ratio is lower on the RefDesk than elsewhere but I do not think it should be below 90%. (Also, on a side note, all those were marked as WP:MINOR when they clearly are not, but Kharon has not been specifically warned about RefDesk posts marked minor and it is not a huge problem either, so I doubt it warrants any sanction.)

I will be leaving notices to their TP and the RefDesk TP soon. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is ref desk trying to be Yahoo Answers? If people want randomly bad answers to burning questions there are plenty of places to ask. We should be just letting them search Wikipedia or the web generally. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is always a problem around Kharon. Another: [55] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, what are we meaning by "source" here? As imposing restrictions about it ought to be clear. Wikilink, or off-wiki source, or robust WP:RS-compliant-only source? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• For the purpose of a Ref Desk answer, generally "show us where we can read more about this" is good enough. WP:RS is best, but links to Wikipedia articles which themselves are reliably sourced are good too, but something is better than nothing. --Jayron32 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, something is not better than nothing - if people restricted their answers to areas they have specific expertise in things would go much better. Refdesk should not be an exercise in trying to be a human Google result repeater. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In case you missed it, "something is better than nothing" means a shaky source is better than no source, even if no answer might be better than either. The gradation goes something like: batshit crazy website < crazy website < no answer < amateur blog on the topic < newspaper/main press article < WP article on connected areas < WP article or RS addressing directly the point. Being able to Google the correct keywords is all the "specific expertise" needed to get an answer superior to no answer for some RefDesk questions. (On the other hand, answering off the top of your head because you feel you're qualified on the topic is a recipe for disaster - I am pretty sure StuRat was extremely qualified in their own mind for everything they answered.)

If you want the RefDesk to be wiped off WP, that's your prerogative, but please do not hijack this thread. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just to clarify "some source is better than no source" is what I meant. Also "A source with no answer" is FAR better than "An answer with no source". Indeed, a source without any additional information is often the best way we can help people: After all, we're doing exactly what the Ref Desk is for: Directing people to references. An answer with no source is at best worthless and potentially misleading. I can see where people will provide synopses of sources, or clarify what they mean, or ask clarifying questions, but earnest answers should always reference a source, and the best answer is often merely directing someone to an expert themselves rather than merely saying stuff we think we know. When I have to link to a "less than reliable source", I'll always say so, things like 'Here's IMDB for a reference; I know it isn't a reliable source, but the credits match what the film does" or "I know this is a forum thread and doesn't really qualify as reliable, but the discussion itself does reference reliable sources, and is a good start for your research". What I try not to do is just answer from my experience. I'm nobody important. --Jayron32 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• So we have a RefDesk response telling people to use formic acid as shampoo. Great. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you checked google? I once knew a girl who always had the most amazing long brown shiny hair and some day, just by chance overheard another girl ask her about her secret. She said ant acid. I have seen her every weekday for years. Should i have kept that a secret? Anyway if you find that amusing, thats totally ok. Guess you have to see it in real to stop laughing. --Kharon (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How dare you give advice that can be even remotely seen as medical ? </rant> - FlightTime (open channel) 16:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what you found on Google; Flighttime is rightly chastising you. Formic acid is the same stuff found in bee venom. While it is a component of various skin and hair products, where other ingredients neutralize its negative effects, it is a skin irritant. Telling people to add formic acid to water to make their own shampoo, at the RefDesk, is one of the most irresponsible things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this a bad joke?

1. 1"..answers are overwhelmingly their own speculation with no reference provided."

I use more references and links to articles that 95% of all other refdesk participants.

1. 2 "Kharon's contributions on the science Ref Desk have been mildly disruptive."

I dont get it. I seem to be magnetic to specific characters who turn to insults and personal attacks. I never insult anyone or question their professional suitability. WHY THE **** AM I SUDDENLY THE DISRUPTIVE ONE in some long ago conflict cases you dug out?

Also, why dont you simply google "shampoo allergy" for a try? It is a sad surprise to blame me without any (counter)-evidence. Additionaly this is a TRIVIAL fact which by our rules dont need to be referenced with a reputable scientific source. It seems you where just searching samples you could frame up very very week as rule violation and then make your argument by mass instead by quality. Your own

Besides, i also add more references in my answers than User:Andy Dingley and he has build a history of attacking me frequent with insulting ad hominem instead of constructive arguments (So no surprise to find his comments here again with some old claims). --Kharon (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon: Be aware that "I know I'm right. Just google it yourself and you'll see!" did not save StuRat from his ban, and it won't save you. "I understand what I am doing wrong, and I will strive to not do it again in the future" and then following through with that promise will. Just letting you know so you can't claim you were not informed down the road, when and if such a ban does happen. --Jayron32 17:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• why don't you simply google... That's the problem, Kharon. If you give a RefDesk answer relying on information you found somewhere on Google, link to it.

If you ask a real-life reference desk librarian some question, they will not answer "yes" or "no" then go back to whatever you were doing, they will tell you to go fetch such-and-such book. In the process, you get not only the information, but a whole lot of contextually-important knowledge. If, as you say, you use more references and links to articles that 95% of all other refdesk participants, then give them with your answers; because from an external point of view, the amount of searching you did before participating in each of the ten threads above was zero. Maybe I am in the top 5% of RefDesk respondents but I strive to give one article or external link for each claim I make.

As for your comparison to Andy Dingley: see WP:OSE. I do wish Andy Dingley would put references with their posts. Yet every one of AD's posts that I had the knowledge to evaluate for technical claims was on-point. If I had caught AD saying something wrong and doubling and tripling and quadrupling down when pointed out that it was wrong, I would have brought him here (or somewhere else). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

External references are important. Thus we learn that John Deere, the 19th century US farm equipment maker, was the inventor of the early medieval mouldboard plough. References are good, but they're no excuse for just being wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have two thing 1) Unambiguously, Kharon needs to stop the sort of problematic answers, or at least strive to find and summarize sources rather than spout off answers with no effort to find references for the OPs of the questions he answers. 2) in kind, but not in magnitude, this was what StuRat was banned for. Keep in mind, however, that interventions short of banning were attempted for years with StuRat. I don't think this deserves any admin attention or ban discussion as yet since we have not attempted to manage this with less drastic measures. Perhaps Kharon does not know the problems they are creating because no one has made it clear to them. I hope this discussion acts to make it so we don't have to. --Jayron32 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think this deserves any admin attention or ban discussion as yet since we have not attempted to manage this with less drastic measures. But what are those less drastic measures? Other RefDesk respondents have told him that their answers were unsatisfactory: Dmacks here, an IP here, an IP's "you're off-topic" here, and that includes the above 10 threads only. Off the top of my head, there is also the encounter with me and this uncivil post by Doroletho (I get why one would ignore the latter, but I do believe I was polite enough in the former); I remember yet more, will dig for diffs if needed. At some point I think we need to get the outside community involved, and I do not know any less worse forum than ANI for that kind of conduct issues: the WP:DR stuff is tailored for content disputes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, but there's also a big difference in "one person at a time saying "cut it out" an a group discussion where consensus makes it clear that there is a problem. If it's just one editor giving a warning, it's easy to dismiss. A single discussion that establishes that yes there is a problem is, to me, always a good step in the path of reform. Unless we've had that group discussion, I'm leary to drop the banhammer right away for matters such as this. Kharon, is after all, acting in good faith. They believe they are being useful. This sort of discussion is a better way of making it clear that they are not being useful. If they still continue to ignore this advice, by all means, lets have that discussion. But lets give this sort of intervention the chance to work. --Jayron32 19:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Agree with Jayron in principle, but will note that in all my years on the RD, I don't think I ever saw a problematic editor "come to Jesus" due to discussion on the talk page. If individual notes don't do the trick, ganging up on them on the talk page doesn't seem to either. Discussion there tends to harden the target editor's resolve as they get "confirmation" that the nay-sayers were just out to get them. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  More cynically, it checks off all of the "pre-ban boxes". If we can prove that, as a community, we've bent over backwards to avoid banning someone, then the ban has that much more power. If we banned at the first complaint, people can simply claim "Honest, I didn't know what I was doing was all that wrong". It's inoculation against claims of innocence as much as anything. --Jayron32 20:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  A single discussion that establishes that yes there is a problem is, to me, always a good step in the path of reform. I am OK with that, but again, where? I would have tried the ref desk TP first but a previous attempt was shut down on what I believe are reasonable grounds. WT:RD is already enough of an unofficial "drama board" as it stands (search the archives for "medical advice"), plus I would rather wash the dirty laundry in public. If you know of a better place than WP:ANI (with less sanction connotations), I will gladly ask to withdraw the present thread and move it there, but I simply did not find a better fit. User TP are not neutral grounds, and none of the dispute resolution processes really work. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

At Refdesk, any editor who responds to multiple questions on a regular basis, is bound to start getting on other editors raw nerve. Just like in real life, if you're considered a 'know it all', people will find you to be annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The way to avoid that is to not know things. Instead, provide people with things to read (links to other websites, titles of books or articles in journals, Wikipedia articles that are well-written and referenced, etc.) and that generally avoids complaints like this. --Jayron32 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon:, have you considered answering questions on Quora instead? Adding external links or sources to answers is actually frowned upon there. They consider it spam.[56] [57]--Auric talk 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side-note: I think Kharon is over-using the 'minor edit' button, in all his contribs. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to be fast and honest admitting if i am/was wrong and i am also always open to discussions on my talk page, unless they violate a basic civil language and seem to miss a constructive aim. I am not perfect nor always right, just like anyone contributing here.

I will try to add more scientific reference in future answers and copy this whole section to my talk page when it is archived or closed so i can review all the arguments anytime later. --Kharon (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop trying all together and go do something else. Edit an article maybe. It's very clear the refdesk is not where you should be editing at all. --Tarage (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop answering questions about which you don't have any knowledge. Google doesn't replace actual knowledge of a subject, and in at least one place, you offered advice that presents a low-level danger to anyone who follows it without checking how accurate your response was. Stick to what you know. Grandpallama (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Kharon has given some annoyingly poor answers there, but we have to look at this in context. A combination of mechanized trolling, over-the-top "troll hunters" scaring off or disgusting regulars, general blocks on new contributors from asking questions, and general nastiness in interactions has driven off a lot of the best talent. The Refdesk is, at least for now, not going to live up to the expectations of high quality questions and answers we had in the past. Posters like StuRat and Kharon should have a place in our ecosystem; they are part of an ecological succession, and eventually should be inhibited not by admin action but by the quick on-topic responses of more talented -- or at least, more careful -- participants. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Per my original post: StuRat being shown the door made the refdesk a far better place than it was. If we excuse terrible behavior because the general level is bad, we will never improve. I would be glad if we got to a point where posts such as this (from me) would be criticized for being off-topic.

It is also absolutely nonsensical to suggest that bad replies should be left alone and just corrected by better replies. Everywhere else on Wikipedia, people who add inaccurate information in good faith get criticized and banned if necessary. We do not have to provide everyone a place in "our ecosystem". Sure, let's try other options than the banhammer - but the current "wait until something happens" has failed. (Kharon indicated a willingness to change above, so maybe opening that thread was all it took.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:StuRat was banned from the Refdesks in November 2017. [58] If I look at the WP:Reference desk/Science now, versus October,September, August, do I see an improvement? Not nearly. Now do note that here I am not looking to relitigate StuRat's case or file some kind of surprise ban appeal on his behalf, so I don't want to argue about any contributions of his from that period in detail again. I just want to be clear that the Refdesk is not a "far better place" because of his ban or any other reason.

I should also note that I had 18 messages about multiple failed login attempts to my account in the past 24 hours, so contributors here should be warned to set secure passwords NOW. With all the incredibly draconian anti-hacking laws out there (and the criminal networks those make possible) I should consider the possibility that there must be real money to be made in disrupting the Refdesk; I wonder if the same is happening in similar locations. I wonder if there is some company that wants to charge in money, privacy, and passwords to bank accounts for participating in the kind of conversation we offer here, and I would like to see them lose their entire investment plus. Wnt (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Just got 15 more "multiple failed attempts" notifications messages. I have no idea if "multiple" is 5 or 5 million; the help page makes me somewhat hope the former but it says you get a notification that says "5", not "multiple". Wnt (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, refdesk sci is substantially less stupid than it was, since StuRat got the arse. If we could get stop people writing cute gags in small fonts, and oh so witty asides, then that would be a further big step forward. Personally I think this ANI is a bit unnecessary, what we should do is police the refdesk directly at an editor level and call out poor answers. Greglocock (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Doncram, 2018-11-28

• Doncram (talk · contribs)
• Previous ANI report (1 month ago)

Concerning the header of this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This ANI was opened with what I perceive as a prejudicial title "Doncram, 2018-11-2018", and I changed it to Nyttend vs. Doncram, 2018-11-28, which was reverted in this edit by User:Winged Blades of Godric with edit summary "Do not alter section headers and remove stuff by others....". Obviously section headers can be prejudicial. I object to this header being named after myself, based on past experience and very substantial supporting evidence about how naming of ANI proceedings and/or arbitrations is indeed and obviously prejudicial. For one thing, the naming obviously attracts any "enemies" of the named person, and fails to attract "enemies" of other parties involved in a dispute. In the 2012 arbitration proceeding named in my own honor, I had the absurd experience of several arbitrators asserting that the process would not be prejudiced by the naming, which was, from social science research, completely absurd. I would appreciate if anyone else would please rename this to something neutral. --Doncram (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) The ANI is about your behavior, and section headers on ANI and AN (unlike those on article talk pages) can reference the individual who is the subject of the report. "Doncram, 2018-11-28" is in no way prejudicial, and, in fact, is a studiously neutral title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I disagree. "Nyttend vs. Doncram: for one option, would in my opinion be far better, because it could attract "enemies" of both parties rather than just one. Anchoring is Wikipedia's article about the obvious biasing of humans to the first aspect that they are brought to. A neutral option would be to rename this to "Dispute about disambiguation for NRHP-listed courthouse". Why on earth not use that, User:Beyond My Ken? Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, pretty much everyone who writes articles about US county courthouses uses the title "COUNTYNAME Courthouse (STATENAME)" when merely "COUNTYNAME Courthouse" would be ambiguous. It's a longstanding practice that has been enforced with pagemoves when necessary, e.g. [59], [60], and [61]. However, User:Doncram has decided to disagree with this practice and engages in aggressive moving: in addition to moving articles in spite of the convention (click the diffs and see the page histories), he sometimes proceeds to demand a halt by those who conform with this convention. Tonight, I found a collection of articles and moved them to the appropriate places, only to see some reverted (see [62], [63], and [64]) and to get this note at my talk: You know that there is longstanding disagreement about naming of NRHP-listed courthouses, i.e. whether to use (City, State) disambiguation as is used for all other places, or to use (State) for courthouses because they are special...Any new moves have been reversed, comparable to similar notes left for other editors that I know, e.g. [65] and [66]. Tonight's rationale for moves includes outright demands: Abide by agreement not to implement new moves and No moves. Um, WP:OWN anyone? It's time to put a stop to this, since he won't stop himself.

Doncram needs no warning: his tendentious editing previously produced an arbitration case and discussions like this one that resulted in a three-month block. He's received ten significant blocks over the years (twelve total blocks, minus two that were quickly removed) amounting to more than ten months of blocked time — personal attacks (2), edit-warring (6), and general disruptive editing (2). And yet he persists in tendentious editing: different actions, not quite the same, but Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors (arbitration quote) applies here, where he's simultaneously being uncivil and making accusations of misbehavior without attempting to seek dispute resolution, and he's compounding it with WP:OWN. So now it's time to shut down disruptive editing for the eleventh time. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"; why should we believe that his actions will improve after eleven blocks? When you have a history of edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks, and lots of blocks for them, and you add to it with WP:OWN, it's time to make this final. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Doncram seems to want an RFC on this naming. Unless there's some policy/guideline that makes it clear that the current standard is to not include cities in these names, why not have one? Special:PrefixIndex/Washington_County_Courthouse and Special:PrefixIndex/Jefferson_County_Courthouse suggest that current usage is not unanimous; many of those pages have a move history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is literally unanimous except for Doncram. Every one of the articles at those two links that uses Courthouse (City, State) was either created by Doncram or moved to the longer name by Doncram. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Nonsense about this being an ANI issue. There is a content disagreement about how to disambiguate courthouse articles, whether to use (City, State) disambiguation as used in every other type of place listed on the NRHP (fire stations, city halls, bridges, whatever) vs. to use (State) which is preferred by some for county courthouses. I can/will provide diffs/links to some discussions about this, including a number of editors agreeing to disagree about how the disambiguation should be done, but agreeing to not engage in move wars and to accept reversals of any new moves. There has been peace about this.

My user page reflects my learning and dislike about bullying in Wikipedia, stemming from what I experienced as horrible harassment/bullying during 2011 to 2012. Administrator User:Nyttend, who has their own history of controversy, was one figure in that. The 2012 arbitration proceeding they link to was precipitated by their edits falsely alleging copyright or plagiarism violations (if I recall correctly, or it was something similarly bogus), in fact, and they were a named party then were dropped because it was too much to explain. One of the horrible bullying tactics was to name multiple ANI proceedings with prejudicing, blaming titles like "doncram at it again". The eventual arbitration noted, saliently, that there was no resolution about creation of relatively short NRHP articles (which seemed to be what some wished to complain about), remanding it to the community, and there was never any community decision, and since 2012 I made it a point to revisit every short (NRIS-only) article I had ever created and to expand them. Great, glad to know that other anger is still there 6 years later, and to see similar tactics. There is apparently long-running ill-will, but ANI is not the place to have it all out right now, and there is a simple content disagreement here which is not appropriate for ANI. At User talk:Nyttend I offered to have out the RFC about article name disambiguation if they want it. They reply by opening this ANI, which is not right. --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has been started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To try to make something productive about this, I wonder if anyone viewing this with experience in running big RFCs could help to compose an RFC about this issue. Or could others nominate some editor(s) skilled in running big RFCs? It is unfortunate in my opinion that WikiProject NRHP has not included editors/administrators skilled in running consensus development processes and/or there has been unwillingness to participate in discussion and to abide by "decisions" at the wikiproject's talk page. There have been long-running disputes about several matters which would likely appear minor to outsiders. I have taken notes about this issue over a fairly long time period, with summaries of arguments both ways, and links to arguments on each side, which I would dig out. I would be very glad to have the help of someone skilled in consensus-building and not having any perceived involvement in the dispute to date. --Doncram (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I don't understand the need for an RfC. Generally, disambiguators should be as short as possible, just enough information to dispel any ambiguity between articles which would otherwise have the same name. If "COUNTYNAME Courthouse" is ambiguous, then "COUNTYNAME Courthouse, STATENAME" or "COUNTYNAME Courthouse (STATENAME)" clears up any possible confusion, as no state will have two counties with the same name. I don't see any valid argument for requiring "(City, State)" to be used, especially when it's the state which dispels the ambiguity, and not the city. So, where's the pressing need to plunge into a "big RfC"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Side discussion about the header, again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The ANI section header is prejudicial in my opinion. I changed it to neutral-ish "Nyttend vs. Doncram" and Winged Blades of Godric reverted that, then I objected, and then Beyond My Ken collapsed my objection above, which I uncollapsed with explanation. Obviously a section header naming me might tend attract "enemies" of me (not saying that has happened yet) but it will obviously not tend to attract "enemies" of the opposing party. I also linked to the Wikipedia article about human bias, Anchoring. Then another editor reversed my uncollapsing of the section naming dispute. These actions on the name of this ANI section are, in my opinion, well, prejudicial. For the record, I'm the editor that removed the user links to Nyttend, my rational for doing so is Nyttend's talk page or contibs have nothing to do with this discussion. As Beyond My Ken states The ANI is about your behavior, and section headers on ANI and AN (unlike those on article talk pages) can reference the individual who is the subject of the report. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To respond to BYK's latest comment, well, that is a content argument. There has been huge long argument by disambiguation-interested parties about wp:USPLACE naming, which I think mostly resolved in favor of "City, State" rather than "City" or "State" except for about 20 cities covered in an exception based on usage in Associated Press or some other major news agency's usage. I happen to agree that in the U.S. that (City. State) type disambiguation is very good for conveying that the disambiguation is merely about a place in a very background, neutral way, as opposed to unduly involving readers into undue consideration about this being the only place ever of that name within the city or the state, and is consistent with the wp:USPLACE guideline. I believe that Wikipedia readers generally are very unaware about U.S. counties, so the usage of name "WHICHEVER County Courthouse" does not convey very much at all about location, hence disambiguating by (City, State) rather than (State) or (City) is appropriate. I tend to think that Nyttend and some other editors based in Ohio, Indiana and some other states have a mistakent impression of the general readership's knowledge about counties. I sincerely believe that (City, State) is very innocuous and just conveys that the disambiguation is about a place location, rather than raising issues like "Wikipedia readers should know in advance what are county seats of every county in the U.S." or whatever. BYK may happen to be on the other side of major content disagreement about this. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's a "content argument", it's one that you opened: "To try to make something productive about this, I wonder if anyone viewing this with experience in running big RFCs could help to compose an RFC about this issue." My response was that an RfC is not necessary -- and it's not.

What's really necessary here is for you to stop making irrelevant comments, stop fussing about the perfectly non-prejudicial section header, and start explaining your behavior, or else Tarage's sanction -- or something like it -- is going to come crashing down on you. So far, you have explained nothing whatsoever, just waved your hands a lot, perhaps in the hope that it will all go away. Well, it didn't go away at ArbCom, and it's not going to go away now unless you start explaining why you are doing what you are doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• Support block of 6 months based on everything above (including nitpicking over the fucking TITLE OF THE FUCKING SECTION) and their history argumentative, abrasive, wikilawyering, nonsensical bullshit. --Tarage (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes; that was rather...illuminating. ——SerialNumber54129 10:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block of 6 months with a potential' to be site-banned if behavior continues after block per Tarage and WP:ROPE. Especially the part where he nitpicked over the section title of this thread. Enough is enough. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a lengthy block. Yeah, the quibbling over the section title and some of the lawyering is a bit much, but the complaint just seems to boil down to 'Doncram undid some of my moves, and I didn't like the note he left on my talk page...oh, and there's all this bad stuff from the past'. Common edit summaries like "take to talk page" often come across as demanding, but they happen. Nyttend hasn't pointed at any attempt at trying to resolve the naming dispute before starting this thread. So since there's disagreement over naming conventions, and Doncram is suggesting an RFC to settle it, why not just have one and close this? If it doesn't go his way and he refuses to abide by it, then there's something that can be done about that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a block, speaking as an admin, not an arb. Blocks are intended as preventative. The way to prevent conflict on this is to settle the content question. The question is a real one--a good argument could be made that for country courthouses the name of the city is redundant, and also a good argument could be made that it should follow the ordinary pattern, especially as in many cases people are more likely to know the name of the city. This applies to thousands of articles and potential articles, so it needs an RfC. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support RfC Seems reasonable a question to RfC over. Yes, Doncram has a long history of blocks, but that doesn't automatically make him blockable whenever anyone complains about anything, the specific complaint needs to be the issue. Quibbling over the title of this section may seen nitpicking, but considering that title is his username, I can imagine it might touch a sore point, so, again, is hardly blockworthy. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support straw poll However, it seems a bit silly to have an RFC over whether or not to include the city in the title. And that's the core problem. I don't know what it takes to get it into Doncram's head that he frequently falls on his sword over silly nonsense, but this isn't the hill to die on. I support a straw poll just to formalize an already existing informal consensus.--v/r - TP 19:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the call for an RfC, there is already a very strong consensus for the more concise titles per WP:AT. Numerous editors have asked Doncram, on his talk page, not to move these articles. I recall at least three discussions there, as well as one started by Doncram on my talk page recently. More importantly, the vast majority of such articles are titled with simply the state. If you see one using City, State there's an extremely high probability it was put at that title by Doncram. My hope is that Doncram would agree not to move any county courthouse articles. Station1 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the locus of dispute (Doncram), there have been multiple and varied strategies for attempting to prevent disruption to Wikipedia while allowing the user in question to contribute positively. I reiterate my assertion from the last case (Historic Railroad bridges), Doncram should be blocked (starting with a 3 month block) for repeated failures to adhere to the standard operating procedure of wikipedia (WP:BRD, WP:FAIT, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and many more). WP:ROPE was used up and burned long ago (especially in light of a previous NRHP community voted topic ban from NRHP topics). Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Excerpts from the Doncram arbitration case (2013):

• Uncollegial behavior: Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise.

• Move warring: Doncram has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.

So, what, exactly, has changed? And why should the community not take action by sanctioning Doncram for the exact same behavior that got him sanctioned by ArbCom five years ago? As Hasteur said above ROPE has totally run out, and AGF is no longer existant. I am unconvinced that Doncram is fundamentally capable of changing his behavior over the long term, nor do the arguments for not sanctioning him come close to approaching a solution for the problem, which emanates entirely from Doncram, and not from the editors he interacts with, or from any specific content dispute.

Therefore, I support a block of a minimum of 3 months, escalating from there, with the proviso that especially egregious behavior will skip ahead to an indefinite block, after which the community can consider a site ban. I don't believe the community needs to put up with Doncram's behavior any more, and that he has become, overall, a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not married to 6 months. I'm just one of those provocative assholes who gets the ball rolling, because this is some bullshit right here. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• RFC Started I've started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide to amend that page's language; I can't find anything on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which is relevant to this dispute so have not started the RFC on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I still don't think an RfC was necessary, but since you've started one, we'll see what the results are. In the meantime, the existence of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral problems shown by Doncram, which is what this thread is actually about. The RfC addresses the underlying content dispute, this discussion addresses Doncram's behavior, and whether he should be sanctioned for, basically, not changing his pattern since he was dinged by ArbCom five years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Doncram has periods of clarity, civility, reasonableness, and collaboration. But the periods of the opposite of that are becoming longer and more frequent. The ridiculous warring over the title of this thread, in addition to warring over the page names, means we're in a period of darkness. Therefore I support a block of whatever length is determined by consensus, per the facts placed in evidence by Hasteur and BMK. Maybe by the time the block is over the period of darkness will be over as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block. I've worked with Doncram on articles many times over the years. My contact with Doncram has been been consistently positive. Maybe some sort of warning is needed, but a block on an editor who I run into when he's sourcing and expanding dusty, poorly sourced articles about historic buildings, and who has created many hundreds of valuable pages on historic buildings and districts seems counterproductive. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's good that your experiences with Doncram have all been positive, but do you believe that holds for all his interactions? Was the ArbCom sanction not justified, and is the evidence presented here wrong? I'm not attempting to change your !vote, you have every right to your opinion based on your experiences, I just would like to establish if you think other editors are misperceiving or misconstruing or dissembling in some way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions, the Arbcom case is old history and there is an element of settling very old scores. The RFC should end the content dispute finally and should be accepted by all sides and if so that is the end of the problem. Doncram is a valued content creator and improver and is not abusive and will take on board the criticism here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree that the 5-year-old ArbCom case was "old history", if Doncram wasn't exhibitng the same behavior now. That makes it relevant as a standard for comparison, not as a reason to sanction in and of itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As a close observer of the original Arbitration case and the years of bickering that led up to it, I am concerned that we are repeating the patterns that led us there. From my POV, the run-up to the case went something like this: Doncram would do something idiosyncratic that other regulars at WP:NRHP would disagree with. People would attempt to explain to him that there was a consensus to do it another way. Doncram would work on something else for a while, and then continue repeating his original behavior. Someone would get irritated and revert him. Doncram would sometimes drop the point, and sometimes revert back. Eventually, someone would complain about him here or at another noticeboard. Drive-by commenters would look at a few of Doncram's contributions, see that they weren't obvious vandalism or spam, and decide he was an Innocent Content Creator who was being terribly maligned by people nitpicking for no reason. The thread would sputter out with no consensus, and the cycle would repeat again. The lack of effective intervention during this process allowed the antagonism between Doncram and other members of the project to escalate, until the disruption detailed in the Arbcom case occurred.

I bit my tongue when he was brought to this noticeboard last month, because I think his behavior has improved significantly since the Arbitration case: his articles are better written and sourced, and he seems more willing to discuss reasoning for his actions. On the other hand, in the three incidents that have cropped up since October (sparring over the railroad bridge article, getting blocked after re-creating one of his deleted categories, and the current one), I see two troubling tendencies. The first is a persistent inability to distinguish between his own preferences and what other editors actually support. e.g., given that the RfC on the current subject (courthouse naming) is currently running in 8–0 against his position, the supposed "number of editors agreeing to disagree about how the disambiguation should be done" appears to be largely his own imagination. (This nine-year-old discussion is the closest match I've found to his description, and I'd hardly describe it as establishing a strong minority opinion, much less a consensus in favor of his preferred style.) The second is that ever since the Arbitration case, Doncram has used accusations of "bullying" to avoid responding to criticism. I don't think that's an unfair description of the condition of things when they went to Arbitration—he was subject to edit-warring and personal abuse motivated by a dislike of him—but I don't see that he's ever acknowledged the role of his own behavior in generating that animus. These accusations are not limited to parties from the Arbitration case, and are ongoing. To give two recent examples, involving parties not involved in that dispute: on October 17, after Magicpiano asks him to fix broken links after page moves, Doncram tells him [67] "don't try to evoke and invoke bullying/shitty tactics that were long used against me in the past." and [68] "in general an approach to try to denigrate / run down an editor by creating a false narrative about how horrible they are, by repeated jabs, would indeed be bullying and shitty behavior." On November 5, he tells Mackensen that opening a report here after a protracted dispute created a [69] "perception of bullying-type behavior", and shortly thereafter [70], "I do perceive that you, Pi.1415926535, wish to shut me up". And I now see that he's spent the past few months working on Wikipedia:How to be a bully in wikipedia.

My original purpose in writing this lengthy post was to suggest a middle course of action. I can certainly understand a reluctance to impose a block on Doncram, given his prolific construction of short, but informative and properly-sourced NRHP articles. At the same time, the number of conflicts he's gotten into with entirely separate people over the past two months suggest that something needs to be done to break the cycle I described, wherein mutual antagonism grows between Doncram and other editors until multiple parties have engaged in block-worthy behavior. I'm not sure exactly how to frame it, but I think a topic ban on page moves and some restrictions on talk pages would work—the idea being to direct him toward article creation, which he does well, and away from trying to argue his own interpretations of policy and consensus, which he does badly.

However, after reviewing the relevant finding of fact in the Arbitration case, "Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise." and seeing just how readily he's used his "perception of bullying" to try to turn discussions his own way, I am unfortunately compelled to support block, although I would strongly recommend trying to frame a restriction if there's no consensus for this approach. I think Doncram's statements are sincere—I'm sure he does perceive himself as being bullied when he gets taken to AN/I—but that finding of fact is a clear signal that constantly declaring these perceptions is not acceptable conduct. Choess (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• That comment is extremely perceptive and exactly right. I agree completely. Station1 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose any type of block or ban of Doncram. Bringing up an ArbCom case from SIX years ago shows that there is some kind of resentment on the behalf of those who don't like his/her/their editing now. Also, there is a massive lack of diffs and I don't see Doncram given any opportunity to respond to all these accusations. I am also influenced by the language that some editors use in this discussion. I ignore and will never be persuaded by the use of strong words to make a point. Doncram seems to be an excellent editor who does the opposite of what he/she/they is being accused of, instead of disrupting the encyclopedia it is being improved by this editor. I have seen content creators often bludgeoned by those who sit in judgement of their work and like the power they have in ANI discussions. Also, I would like to see Doncram propose something that he/she/they will do to help de-escalate this situation or self-impose a course of action that will help diffuse these disagreements. It is time that we act like adults and help editors resolve their differences. We should always take a long pause before banning or blocking a long time editor. I am an uninvolved editor and do not know almost all of those who are participating in this discussion. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 13:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand your comment "I don't see Doncram given any opportunity to respond to all these accusations". As far as I know, Doncram is not prevented in any way from responding here in this discussion. He's not blocked or topic banned from doing so, and contributed to the discussion up until the point where a concrete proposal was posted. He has had, in fact, unlimited opportunities to respond, as long as he doesn't attempt to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation, so his lack of participation is a choice on his part, and certainly shouldn't be factored into to any comment, support or oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Try to respond to each and every undiffed statement in this discussion and you will find just how impossible it is to challenge, clarify, identity generalizations and hyperbole. If there are no diffs, I don't read the comment of others. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Your concern in this regard is noted and reasonable. Below, in my statement, I link an ANI report I filed one month ago with describes the exact same behavior complained of here. That report contains numerous diffs documenting Doncram's behavior and I would appreciate your feedback. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Because it apparently needs saying, I refer to WP:VESTED and the "Super Mario Problem". If a relatively unknown user displayed this kind of disruption, we'd indef block them in a heartbeat, but because Doncram is a user with significant history behind them we're less willing to take action on them or apply sanctions that are less than what we would have applied elsewhere. I would note that Doncram has discussed/refuted previous sanction proposals into "No Consensus" billings. I would also note that (as of this posting) Doncram has not edited since shortly after this thread started up (ANI-Flu?). I would have expected Doncram to have defended themselves vigorously against the editors proposing sanctions, and I perceive an attempt to try and let the furor around this root cause die down and then proceed to resume activities. I would also note that because they have not participated in the naming RFC, so that suggests (in my mind) a "I didn't know about it" or "I didn't get a chance to make my case" excuse for why they chose not to respect the consensus decision. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. As others have noted, the behavior described here is exactly the behavior I brought here about a month ago, right down to Doncram edit-warring over the section header. No action was taken at that time, and here we are again. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, but a block might serve notice that Doncram should stop doing the thing that got him blocked. I don't oppose a block, but I think restricting him from page moves might be a more fruitful avenue. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hanover Research is still disrupting political topics

Relative to the previous case archived here, we still have long-term abuse from the range Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/64 and IP Special:Contributions/64.132.42.50, both of which geolocate to Arlington, Virginia, part of Metro Washington DC. IP 64.132.42.50 is registered to Hanover Research Council, a public relations firm. The IP6 range and the static IP have been doing the same things, which in the last month involves removing instances of recent Democratic voter wins.[71][72][73] Can we get a good long block on this POV ugliness? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we typically put the results of elections in township articles? Not saying the IP shouldn't be blocked. I'm wondering why political nonsense makes its way into every possible scope it barely pertains to.--v/r - TP 01:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You're derailing the question here, which is "can somebody rangeblock Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/64 for a long time?" Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Have to agree that the first one seems way too much detail for the lead especially since it is only one election cycle and House election cycles are so insanely short in the US. It may belong if it was better integrated with the previous sentence (has there been a gradual change? was this a major sudden change that shocked everyone?) but at it stands, it just seems a fairly random recentism factoid. I don't know the history of the IPs here, if they are engaged in undisclosed paid editing and have refused to identify themselves then they should be blocked but it's a bad sign when UPE editors are actually improving articles! Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I don't want to see WP:PAID used as a weapon in a content dispute. I think we're on the same page here. UPE should be blocked if demonstrated. But, after the block, was this an appropriate edit?--v/r - TP 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The edits by these IPs do not seem at all beneficial. There is a lot of content blanking and adding of promotionally-toned content, all without edit summaries. The IP4 is blocked for 6 months. A similar block (or longer) should be applied to the appropriate IP6 range.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal - Stew jones

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

---

I have serious concerns about Stew jones (talk · contribs)'s general competence (WP:CIR), especially given how long they have been editing, but particularly their understanding of notability guidelines. Largely BLPs, but a history of other articles as well. A quick look at their deleted contribs shows they have had numerous articles deleted for being non-notable. At two recent AFDs (here and here) they couldn't understand, despite the comments of numerous editors, why the pages they had created were non-notable. In retaliation (WP:POINT) for those AFDs, they then nominated a notable article for deletion - the AFD was closed as 'speedy keep' by @Fenix down:. They have been recently blocked for disruptive editing by @Oshwah:. They are also suspected (WP:DUCK) of editing from an IP, which they basically admit to here.

Proposal - that Stew jones (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from creating any articles in any location other than draftspace. They are also indefinitely banned from moving any articles from draftspace to mainspace.

• Support as proposer. GiantSnowman 09:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question - Us regular editors can't see the deleted content, so it's near impossible to judge competence. I see that the editor has been pretty uncooperative when you tried to discuss these concerns with him. My question is, why haven't other admins and editors raised these concerns on Stew Jones talk page? It seems like you are the only one who has dealt with this for more than two years.- MrX 🖋 12:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: in relation to deleted content, there are over 1,000 entries going back to 2006. In relation to concerns, you are correct that I recently raised concerns with him - which he dismissed. Other editors have commented on his editing over the years, see this and this and this. Simply look at the number of warnings and notices on his talk page. GiantSnowman 12:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are lots of deleted edits, yes, but they're mostly multiple edits to a much smaller number of articles. For example, he created 2013–14 Tamworth F.C. season in 2013 and it was not deleted until 2016 after a total of 399 edits (not all his), so I think the 1,000 deleted edits figure can be misleading when there are often dozens of edits (or more) to his name per individual deleted article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes, I see that, but you seem to have placed a substantial number of those warnings yourself. Can we have a look at a few recent sample articles that would convince us that this editor should be banned from creating articles in mainspace? Can you undelete a few for discussion purposes? - MrX 🖋 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are only two, the two whose AFD's are linked (here and here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually a number of editors have placed numerous warnings (eg @Mattythewhite: a number of times in 2013/2014, but even as far back as 2007). And no, I won't be undeleting NN articles for the purpose of this discussion. Why on earth would we do that? GiantSnowman 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there's no need to undelete any, as the content itself is not the issue - it's the notability of the subjects, and the AFDs got it right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• We don't ban editors for creating a couple of non-notable articles.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is a proposal for a topic ban, not a ban - and this editor has had dozens of non-notable articles deleted over the years. GiantSnowman 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's not actually a topic ban either; it's an article creation in main space and moving from draft space ban, thus my shorthanded "ban".- MrX 🖋 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. I'm only seeing two articles deleted in recent years, the two whose AFDs are linked above. Prior to those, the most recent deleted article appears to have been created in 2014. Those prior ones were mostly football club seasons, but they were not deleted until 2016 with "Expired PROD, concern was: Fails WP:NSEASONS. Recent AfDs have resulted in these articles being deleted." If it took several years for anyone to pick up on them (and it looks like a number of other similar articles by different writers were dealt with around the same period), I think we should forgive him for perhaps not being aware of that particular notability guideline. There's earlier stuff too, but we were far less focused on picking up notability issues back then, and I think some sort of informal statute of limitations should apply. So, I think we can only fairly evaluate this on the recent non-notable articles, and only two of them does not strike me as sufficient disruption for a topic ban right now. I suggest Stew jones (talk · contribs) should take this as a heads-up, and we should only consider sanctions if it becomes a continuing current problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: fair point, but what about the AFD he nominated that resulted in 'speedy keep'? Not only WP:POINT but shows he learnt nothing from the AFD of his own two articles. This is not a new editor - he's been here 12/13 years! The fact he still doesn't know about notability is extremely concerning to me... GiantSnowman 12:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that was definitely pointy and definitely bad form. But I don't think it calls for any more than a heads-up warning at this point, and coming from an ANI discussion could make it sink in better. Should we see more non-notable creations after this, I could then support a topic ban and a requirement to use AFC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Taking into consideration the OP's assertions and having reviewed Stew jones' talk page and some of their recent contributions, there seems to be little evidence that this editor has disruptively created articles to the extent that would justify such a draconian removal of his editing privileges.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I appreciate the support from others on here, I made two articles, Regan Upton and Anthony Breslin, both are football players who played in the EFL Trophy, my argument was other players have only played in the competition, but have articles, I’m told that under 23 teams don’t count, however my argument is the competition is a professional one, now regardless of this the articles were deleted, with GiantSnowman very much at the forefront of making this happen, frustrating, but that’s life, so I came across an article for Tom Fielding a footballer who has never made a professional apparance, an article created by GiantSnowman, but seen as this doesn’t meet the criteria, I put up a notice for deletion, and then a few days later I am being put up for ban by GiantSnowman, as you can all see I have been improving the non league football scene for some time now, but I have clearly been targeted here, on the whole most of the admins and users on here are quite pleasant, but I’m sorry to say that there is a bit of a bully boy culture here and I feel victimised by this user GiantSnowman who is constantly checking everything I do and trying to essentially find a way to get me some type of permanent ban from improving Wikipedia, seems unbelievably harsh to me Stew jones (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

When an editor finds another editor doing things that they have concerns with, it is not unusual to look deeper into their history. This is what admins are expected to do. It's being diligent in the role that they've been tasked with. If another editor was doing it without justification then that could be considered hounding, but not in this case. --Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stew jones: While I oppose a sanction at this time, I do think there are valid concerns with your understanding of specific notability guidelines - and I know how complicated they can be, so you have my sympathy. I also do not see any bullying or victimization here, and there's definitely no wish to ban you from improving Wikipedia - I see GiantSnowman as someone who genuinely wants to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose not seeing near enough problemsto justfy an editing restrictio. I have thousamds of deleted contributions - it depends on what you work on. Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I do see signs of problems relating to this user's facility with basic editorial procedures, but I must join others who have commented here in saying that a couple of poorly sources articles is not near the level of disruption I'd need to see before considering any sanction, let alone a TBAN as broad as the one proposed. Frankly, our sports SNGS are probably the single most subjective and idiosyncratic bit of policy in the entire rules framework of this project; I think they are desperately in need of reform, often being the result of discussions between relatively small groups of hyper-zealatous fans who decide on their own what makes a figure in that particular sport "important enough" to warrant mention, rather than using an objective test like GNG which does not hinge on inviting in the personal opinions and biases of a group of editors who often anything but neutral on the subject. This is a major issue with all of our SNGs, but the problem is (if you'll forgive the pun) on steroids with regard to the various subdivisions of NSPORTS. If ever there was an environment on this project wherein I would be inclined to cut an editor some slack for failing to understand why their own internal logic is any more subjective than the policy standards they are expected to use instead, this is surely it. All that said, I am concerned that Stew went after one of Snowman's articles following those AfDs, and by hints of a WP:Battlefield mentality in comments above. But on the basis of what has occurred so far, I can't support a sanction. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: There could be a hint of escalating a potentially serious issue in the wrong direction. I haven't looked into this but "IF" one editor goes after another, as retribution creating a battlefield arena (per comments above), an ANI for stalking for disruption or related violations (incivility such as an attack or being uncooperative, especially where there would be availability of warnings) would certainly be warranted and appropriate. If this is shown I would hope swift to stop because this would be an egregious form of personal attack as well as concerns of harm to Wikipedia. Sanctions for a "crime committed" seems more appropriate than what could be considered as a "back door" solution. Since I am sure the editor was issued notification of this thread hopefully this alone might be cause for consideration of actions (comments above of possible hounding, being inconsiderate, possible concerns of not intending to build an encyclopedia) that could (very likely) result in future sanctions. Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - @Stew jones: I know you think I am "after you" - I assure you I am not. As stated above, I am merely exercising my role as an administrator. If you won't listen to me about the numerous problems with your editing, I suggest you listen to the wise advice of the other admins above. GiantSnowman 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: I am probably not considered particularly wise, or an admin, but hopefully gave advice deserving reflection. I am not a fan of any project that allows for "exemptions" that actually run counter of policies and guidelines and when concerns are raised should be considered. There also has to be consideration such as above if an editor is violating policy or just pushing the boundaries given by projects. All project directives, opinions, and editing "advice" are still subjected to the more broad community consensus. Disruptions and attacks are serious. I have seen admins get attacked and transparency such as this is good, not only to document there are potential issues, but ensuring there is not a possible boomerang. Otr500 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Waenceslaus

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

---

I have blocked Waenceslaus for one week for violation of topic ban on longevity imposed here on ANI in 2015 for their creation of Maria Roszak and edit related to it. Three edits since unblock by ArbCom, and all three are in violation of their topic ban. -- KTC (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• We'll all be supercentenarians before we're rid of the plague of longevity crazies. Consider this snippet from three years ago [74]:

This is to inform you that, as per the consensus in the ANI thread referred to above, you are now indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to longevity, including (but not limited to) all edits at WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People and discussions about it, as well as articles in its scope. This sanction will be listed at WP:RESTRICT and can be appealed as outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So you went right ahead and broke the topic ban with this [75] edit? I won't block you for this one just yet, but do take this as a final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. Why, please, are we not now back at indef? EEng 13:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...it appears we now have EEng's Law - also known as the Supercentenarians Law of Longevity Crazies. It was first proposed by Wikipedian EEng on November 30, 2018 at the height of an English dramafest and was carefully crafted to state the inevitable: After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. And so it was written of record in the anals of ANI with no right to ever be forgotten. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Good thing you put anals in italics because otherwise we might not have noticed the joke. EEng 07:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

_{Has anyone else noticed the longevity of the of this editor's issue with longevity? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)}

• I appreciate the quick block, but I also wonder, given they violated their topic ban right after it was imposed and right after the block was lift by ArbComm after an email appeal, why we have ANY thought they will not be back on creating pages about old people in a week? Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion, an indefinite block would be warranted which could be appealed back to the community. Personally, I have been willing to grant unblocks to individuals who (1) express an understanding of what they did wrong and (2) make a commitment to not repeat those actions again. Waenceslaus met these criteria in speaking with the committee and they were given a second chance on good faith with editing restrictions put in place. Waenceslaus immediately violated their unblock conditions and editing restrictions as supercentenarian topics were a problem for them before and led to community sanctions. This demonstrates to me they have used up their second chance and are not ready to return. Mkdw ^talk 17:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Re-indef this “editor”. What on Earth was Arbcom thinking with this unblock? They certainly got played for fools, no need to waste any more time when he does it again in a week’s time. Courcelles (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, really ... I said at the current ArbCom case that the unblocking of the editor discussed there was one of the worst I'd seen ... but this might actually be worse. You've got an editor that was a 95% SPA on longevity issues, who insisted that longevity WikiProject was the sole arbiter of all such article, and also socked as an IP to "back up" his cases; who deliberately ignored the result of an RfC (and even asked for the desysop of admins who stopped him doing it), who was then topic-banned from longevity subjects, socked again with a named account to get round that ban, and was then indeffed. What exactly did ArbCom expect was going to happen when he was unblocked? He was a massive timesink for various people the first time, let's ensure he isn't this time. A week is pointless - just re-indef, please. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the one-week, if it's clear the next block will be an indef. This is so blatant a violation that there's not much time being wasted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comments: WOW! I hope others see that Wikipedia editors, admins, and apparently ArbCom, can seemingly bend over backwards to be lenient, to the extent of stretching second chances (3rd through 6th or more) in a effort to keep editors. I am not sure if the "Look, we are going to slap your hand for the umpteenth time" practice works but eventually, when enough rope is given, the end results have been consistent. I am just examining this in wonderment.

Using a WikiProject as an umbrella: I have seen several instances concerning editors operating within projects and claiming project superiority of "law". I didn't even know there was a "longevity WikiProject" (Looks newer and a stated replacement project for WikiProject World's Oldest People) but note there are notability and sourcing criteria consistent with policies and guidelines. I am a member of several WikiProjects but anytime I see evidence of an editor or a particular project operating on principles not accepted by the more broad community I have to interject. Anything "allowed" (wikilawyered etc...) by silence can effectively ignore the "rules" (subjected to clear Wikipedia improvement as well as consensus), but does not change or over-ride community accepted policies and guidelines. Any editors actions, wrongly, under a misguided assumption, or apparent unclear project recommendations or mandates, just creates community confusion and disruption.

Concerning this editor: It just seems that if an editor exhibits evidence, by multiple violations clearly indicating they are "not ready to return", then we are just giving them the extra-extra rope out of consideration? I guess that is not a bad thing but seems a waste if they keep throwing it down and are given another in a repeated cycle. Maybe we should examine advocating for a clear 3rd and last chance (as opposed to a 2nd chance times up to 6). Leniency here would be the third chance accounting for the community or ArbCom stepping in then realizing: It is possible to admit someone has jumped off a cliff without a parachute and that throwing them feathers won't stop the inevitable. Anyone caught using a sock should be indef'ed so that is certainly a monumental oops on ArbCom.

When you add all the above up, including the 2nd sock, attacking the admin, continuing with no apparent plans to change (a good title for an essay "How to get away with it on Wikipedia") and others, I just wonder. Do editors get this much leniency when making attacks (especially egregious personal ones) or harassment towards others? If so then no wonder there are civility issues on Wikipedia. That would also seem to mean that before we even start we are ignoring WP:5P4 that can be an eventual detriment to Wikipedia.

I am not considered a betting person but would wager this editor likely has more socks in the drawer, any takers? If the above scenario plays out, yet another indef, an appeal to the community, I would hope it is not violating canvassing for someone to let me know. I would love to see how many feathers are tossed trying to stop a fall. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I nodded off there. You were saying? EEng 05:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sleeping a lot helps you live past 110, maybe, hopefully, except a lot of people die in bed so maybe not. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, he needs to stop getting his nods off here - this is not the place for it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• There not here to build a meaningful encyclopedia so just indef them. All they’re going to do after the week is carry on so what’s the point? IWI (chat)
• Arbcom un-bans the editor-in-question, then he/she immediately breaches his conditionally imposed topic ban? This appears to be a WP:CIR situation. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reinstating the indefinite block has to be the way to go here. I do understand giving another chance but Waenceslaus clearly has no interest and isn't going to be editing outside of longevity. Since the topic ban was imposed back in 2015 Waenceslaus has made one single edit anywhere else. While making the single edit he was also running around with a second account trying to dodge the topic ban. Three years later and he's unblocked and what does he do? Violates the topic ban. He's too high risk to only give him a week long block since it's extremely likely we'll be back here in a week or so's time dealing with another edit he shouldn't be doing. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• I support reinstating the indef block. The topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I fully support reinstating the indef block as the topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and it is clear this editor is never going to change their ways. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Site ban?

• Comment Rather than dilly dallying with an indefinite block, just go straight for a site ban. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the subject matter and how thoroughly predictable this was, I feel no compunction about posting the following:

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban per WP:NOTHERE and WP:I FOOLED THE ARBS, BWAHAHA. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban obviously. EEng 12:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for using meatpuppet(s) Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban per my commentary in the section above. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per above. Comes right off an unblock by ArbCom after three years—only to return by violating their topic ban. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Nothing else to say. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. It's quite evident he isn't actually here to build an encyclopaedia, just spread his views. Wikipedia can do with far less partisans in EVERY single topic area. The fact that he didn't even bother trying to adhere to the topic ban suggests that he didn't think there were any repercussions for violating it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Not here to build an encyclopedia; end of. IWI (chat) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Clearly, I support a site ban, with an indef block to make it work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my comments above. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support the Site ban for my reasons above. Too high risk he'll break his topic ban again and clearly has no interest editing outside longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my and others' comments above. They clearly will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia and had enough chances to prove otherwise. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW support for siteban. Frankly, I'm just plain blown away by the ballsiness here. This editor is lucky enough to have their unblock request granted by ArbCom, who go out of their way to point out that their topic ban is still in place, and the very first edits said editor makes are to exactly the topic area covered by the TBAN, when socking in relation to that ban was the reason they were indeffed in the first place? Honestly, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that ArbCom and the community at large are being trolled here. The only other possibility is the world's biggest case of WP:IDHT. Either way, I am in agreement with the clear consensus here that this user is WP:NOTHERE in the remotest sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible sock? (More WP:MEAT)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. appears connected as the creator of List of Polish supercentenarians which this account edited, and name similarity. Now User:A massive zebra just came off a 6 year break to vote Keep on the Polish article. The zebra knows a lot of Wikijargon considering their editing history and wants me topic banned. Perhaps unhappy I CSD'd the page on a Polish supercenturian they created right after Arbcomm lifted their block. Makes one wonder if the blocked user is socking again. Ping User:KTC Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Past behavior, points to more socking. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. and User:Waenceslaus don't overlap; the latter only started editing after the former stopped. They are probably the same person, but this looks more like someone forgetting their password and starting a new account. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Waenceslaus and User:A massive zebra aren't the same person - someone in a current AfD mentioned this longevity forum, and there are clearly two users there, in different countries, called Waenceslaus and A massive zebra. Obviously that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been off-wiki canvassing, as they probably know each other from this forum. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That would not be surprising. The 110 club forum has a very long history of off-Wiki canvassing. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See Courcelles' comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Waenceslaus_unblocked_following_successful_appeal. Your ping didn't work by the way. -- KTC (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Waenceslaus and Zebra are the same person but at the very least he might be a meat puppet from the 110 club. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I posted about possible socking here before info about the forum and locations came up. I believe this is more likely off wiki canvassing, as it is pretty unlikely an account dormant for 6 years that has never been to AfD just happened to find this AfD. Pretty clear the similarly named accounts are the same user but they are not socks. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut

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

---

• Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lingzhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Axylus.arisbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These clean-start (although it's not a secret) accounts belong to the same person, who told me here that they plan to use more accounts in the future. This is not a clear violation of WP:BADSOCK, so I'm asking here because I don't believe this behavior falls under WP:VALIDALT. The problematic thing here is the fact that this editor doesn't like the FA process, and has participated in a RfC with the newest account, and the RfC was about the FA process. Reading WP:CLEANSTART, I see that it is unacceptable to deceive users in controversial areas. This editor is probably aware of all of our policies, as s/he has run for adminship in 2010. If this is deemed unacceptable, I propose banning the editor from using more than one account, and blocking the accounts older than the most recent one indefinitely. wumbolo ^^^ 14:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would say "Wake me up when this is done" but no need. I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context. I am not disruptive. So your best bet is "Nothing to see here, move along". [OH PS Ling.Nut is password scrambled... Lingzhi is scrambled... axylus.arisbe is scrambled... But....actually IIRC I think this one is scrambled too, but I haven't logged out yet.. so... whatever.]Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut is a long time and respect editor who is now disillusioned with the project after a few fairly major set backs on an article he poured his heart and soul into and hoped to get to FAC, but was met with a lot of varied resistance that had the accumulated effect of total and utter disenchantment. For each of the incarnations, its pretty clear who it is, and he is very open; by habit and nature. I dont see any need for possible sanction, though I would like my old friend to return to the familiar Lingzhi account...he last edited as Ling.Nut in 2011!!! ps, far as I know accounts can be unscrambled...or effectively usurped...didn't we do this for Giano? Rather than harass valued editors with silly rule waving, we should be reaching out to restore thie faith and place in the community. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like awfully WP:POINTy behavior, whatever its cause; disillusionment is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and " I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context" is a clear indication of the editor's willful disinclination to follow community rules and norms. I would support requiring the editor to pick one of their accounts and stick to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just incase anyone was confused and/or cares, this account has nothing to do with me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  ​ lol I was just about to comment with a ping to you. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ling, while I don't think it was either disruptive or deceptive, the combination of "a new username every month" and "I don't care about rules" is inevitably going to awaken unhappy memories in some of the honest people still left at FAC. Disillusionment hasn't made you less intelligent or insightful, and if you want to limit your activity to being a very occasional voice of institutional memory, I think that's a perfectly respectable and healthy thing for you to do. Creating a new account whenever the spirit moves you is just going to encourage pointless drama by the rules-minded. Why feed it? Choess (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• You cannot be serious with this. Read the goddamn box at the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is none of those things; if it is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. Fatuous is quite right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If for nothing else, I hope to be remembered for fashioning that phrase. EEng 07:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I thought you did fashion it, oh great one, because at first glance, my mind, in its oft rather bizarre workings, homonymously saw flatulence ...ahhh, the things we see during Happy Hour.🧚🏻‍♀️🙈🐘 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please report to the repair bay for adjustments to your positronic brain. EEng 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. The phrase was urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems

• @Mr rnddude:I agree with you, this discussion fits in with what the regular AN Main noticeboard is for. I think the user who initiated this section should move this to the Main AN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is both a chronic and an intractable problem. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since there are multiple instances of the behavior described, and since the editor involved has disclaimed any inclination to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The multiple, chronic, intractable problems are: 1) Creates a new account, leaves a few comments, promptly abandons the account. Rinse and repeat. And 2) Issued a proclamation of, I paraphrase, "fuck the police, coming straight from the underground", and then promptly left. I repeat: if, if this is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. This is in combination with not even a hint of account misuse (except the creating of accounts apparently), or of disruption. Let me know when this thread succeeds in either a) protecting the encyclopedia, or b) improving it. My money is on never. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed for block evasion

• Special:Contributions/96.66.44.150
• 2601:400:8000:ABA0:0:0:0:0/64

Both IPs geolocate to Ann Arbor, MI, and both add unsourced content to cartoon characters' descriptions which alter or add ages and heights. The IPv4 is blocked for 3 months for DE, but the IPv6 is not. They are rather clearly related:

• IPv4 [76] [77] [78] [79]
• IPv6 [80] [81] [82] [83]

Requesting rangeblock for DE and block evasion EvergreenFir (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that 2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/42 was blocked as well and used to engage in the same behavior and also geolocates to Michigan. Same with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:400:C001:87D2:E165:AC6C:6A8A:AFF1. This has been going on for months apparently. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

2601:400:8000:ABA0::/64 blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oreratile1207 disruptive edits and promises to revert any changes

Oreratile1207 is very clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has been warned many MANY times to not add unsourced content yet continues to do so. In these diffs: [84], [85], [86] said they would revert any edits made by Sam Sailor who tried to help multiple times. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about NOTHERE, but they are disruptive and their attitude could be more positive. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Very young user judging from his user page. He did not actually go and undo any edits, and he did say he was sorry for threatening to do so. Nobody has posted him a welcome message in the three weeks he has been here, so I have done that and gave him a TWA invitation. If he's willing to listen and learn, I'm willing to mentor. @Oreratile1207, don't be afraid to chime in here. Sam Sailor 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• You might ask them why they stopped editing with Oreratile46 (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

More promises to revert all changes by other editors: [87]. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / Sockpuppet

• Crisis Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Msunnucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, I believe this requires an urgent case of attention, namely because it deals with an issue of COI, as well as possible sockpuppetry.

On the article: International Crisis Group, on 14 June 2018, there was an edit by a username Crisis Group.[88] It was subsequently banned by Alexf

However, looking through the edit history, I've noticed another user by the name of Msunnucks in 21 June 2018 editing the article, who, as part of his uncited updates also happened to purge the article of criticism (citations including Human Rights Watch, CFR, etc).[89] I'm surprised this was overlooked and not reverted. This looks like a pretty bad case of conflict-of-interest and outside censorship. –DA1 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User should be blocked with the same criteria as Crisis Group, with SPI needed. Both are same person, probably. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though they've not edited since June, Msunnucks is still entitled to be notified of this thread. I've gone ahead and done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. a coupla people have done some cleanup on the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User redirecting pages for no apparent reason, abusing sandbox

• Sidetosice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today he redirected the sandbox [90] and the article Taki Taki (song) [91] without providing any reason why. And as many of you know the sandbox should never be redirected. He also seriously misused the sandbox long before, including inserting offensive material and user warnings [92]. Looking at his talk page, he has gotten many warnings in the past, but has either not adressed them or gave some vague response (like to my warning [93]), violating WP:COMMUNICATE. funplussmart (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying “excuse me” is violating communication rules? Where are you when I keep replying to your warnings on my talk page? And what was the reason for opening a discussion about this.. Sidetosice (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sidetosice: Even if you receive a warning for disruptive editing, and respond with "excuse me", you should try to do as the warning says, and not just continue. The discussion was started because funplussmart's attempts to stop your disruption failed. See WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean I do understand but I didn’t edit anything else after I got the warning Sidetosice (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidetosice: I think funplussmart wasn't very clear in referencing that there is a history of disruptive editing, and not just those warnings today. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I mentioned how his talk page has a long history of warnings he seemed to have ignored, and I may not have made that clear enough in the original comment, but that is my major concern about this user. funplussmart (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps give a few more diffs of disruptive editing. I have more important things to do in life, I've said all I have to say. I'll just let others comment on this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally comment here, I like to avoid Wiki drama, but I am willing to comment about Sidetosice as I have experienced their disurptive editing. For example, when the page Lati K was going to be deleted (which they created), they repeatedly blanked the page (as you can see from the 3 2 warnings on their talk page) and after it was deleted did this to the AfD for some reason... I do see this leading to WP:IDHT and WP:CIR but I don't know if all this is warranted for an ANI. I guess I'm a pacifist in that sense but I can vouch for funplussmart. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Acroterion has blocked Sidetosice. [94] funplussmart (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

A couple of requests have been there for a while. IWI (chat) 01:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Terryfirut

• Terryfirut (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The user disrupt Wikipedia by making a lot of edits in a short period of time, and those edits were reverted by others. Pinging @Ad Orientem: as the admin has followed this user.--158.182.174.219 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User notified. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed Very likely some specie of socking/block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, their editing history is odd and indicative of someone with experience but there may be other explanations. I am going to err on the side of caution and unblock pending input from Bbb23 who handled a recent SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Other than their blocked so-called Alt account, I don't see any evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Michael in oc

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

---

• Michael in oc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Michael in oc is a newish user. The account was created on 24 October of this year [95], but they have only 9 mainspace edits, 2 in October, 2 in November, and 5 in December. [96] All of their edits have been to the article American nationalism, and every single one of them have violated WP:NPOV by deleting or changing sourced material to skew it in a particular direction.

On their talk page, Michael in oc makes no bones about their edits being biased [97], [98]: he wishes to replace references to "American nationalism" to "American exceptionalism", a tangentially-related concept which has a separate article of its own. (American exceptionalism)

When told, by me, that administrators do not adjudicate content disputes, that they should be discussed on the article talk page, Michael in oc's response was to immediately restore the reverted edit without discussion. I feel I have no alternative but to bring the issue here so that Michael in oc can be made to understand that their editing behavior is not consistent with Wikipedia's norms, and that he should start a discussion on the talk page instead of restoring disputed edits.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Their response on my talk page is here, reporting an (as of yet) non-existent retaliatory ANI complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

How about WP:ECP? Kraose (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty drastic remedy for the behavior of one editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has self-appointed themselves as an enforcer of NPOV by making constant REVERTs to any edits made to the American nationalism page, violating the very policy they claim to espouse. This includes repeatedly reverting an adjustment to Illustration description that originally contained a biased conclusion not consistent with the material being cited. Rather than adding to the encyclopedia value of the project, Beyond My Ken seems to have a behavior pattern of simply reverting everything rather than paying close attention to, or having an understanding of, what is being developed on the page. See my Talk thread for additional information. Michael in oc (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you've employed the article talkpage to establish a sourced basis for your edits or to find consensus with other editors. How about starting a discussion there, rather than simply asserting that you're right and that you're being obstructed by other editors? Acroterion (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is highly politicized and discussions not acceptable to the ideologues trying to use the page for non-encyclopedic purposes are removing any discussion from the Talk page that they don't like to see. The 'Talk' I was referring to is the Talk for my user page. Michael in oc (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

BMK is a highly experienced editor, one Michael in oc should be learning from and consulting with to address whatever issues they perceive need to be fixed. Revisionism does not go over well here. I don't expect another editor who tried to label Nathan Bedford Forrest as a civil right leader today will have an easy go of pushing that narritive either. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to make an accusation of revisionism, then please be specific on what I was being a revisionist on (Harper's Weekly content cited, etc.) rather than just making the assumption and then providing an example not relevant to what was edited. Michael in oc (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you used the words "enforcer of NPOV". On Wikipedia, I believe that everyone is an enforcer of NPOV. What's wrong with pushing NPOV? I don't see anything wrong with keeping our core policy? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we all play this role. In the context I was using it, tied to the behavioral pattern of excessive reversions by Beyond My Ken, I was expressing frustration at a set of self-appointed "uber" editors who spend more time enforcing their perception of the rules on others than they do on providing original content to pages. To me, this behavior undermines the spirit of what Wikipedia is about and through this blind application of process over substance opens the door to all of those who intentionally mis-cited content on the American nationalism page for politically motivated purposes, undermining it as a source of neutral information (ironically and sadly). At this point, I have no ability to edit the page without Beyond My Ken incessantly removing any edits I make. This is the very definition of disruption. Michael in oc (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael in oc: You don't need to ping me every time you mention me. Since I started this section, I'm aware of its existence, and will return to read it periodically, and comment if I feel it necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, before you characterize my editing again, I suggest you take a closer look at it. Although lately I haven't been doing much more than keeping up with my watchlist because of RL time constraints, I actually have a pretty good record as a content creator. ([99], [100]). On the other hand, as I pointed out above, you have made 9 mainspace edits, all of which were to remove material which was apparently offensive to your personal political philosophy. You have contributed nothing new to any article, and have created no new articles. I hardly think you're in a position to criticize my content work, or to characterize my editing as involving "excessive reversion". Yes, I did revert all of your contributions, but not because they were your edits, because they did not improve the article, and appeared to me (and still do) to be NPOV violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I was just getting started in editing the article, including adding new content, before you started disrupting me. Please stop, so that I can continue my work on the article. You seem to have no other interest in the article other than just applying your own version of rules enforcement. I'm actually someone who has an interest in contributing to it, so please let me. Michael in oc (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael in oc, every edit you made to American nationalism, except the first, removed material. How is that "adding new content"?

• (1) [101] - changed "American nationalism" to "American exceptionalism"
• (2) [102] - deleted the words "by those outside the United States"
• (3) [103] - changed "its nationalism" to "its identity"
• (4) [104] - changed "American nationalism" to "American identity"
• (5) [105] - changed "thus espousing an inclusive form of American nationalism that is civic in nature, where membership in the nation is not dependent upon ethnicity" to "illustrating membership in a nation that is not dependent upon ethnicity"
• (6) [106] - changed "its nationalism" to "its national identity"
• (7) [107] - changed "a wave of nationalist expression" to "a wave of patriotic expression"
• (8) [108] - deletes "thus espousing an inclusive form of American nationalism that is civic in nature, where membership in the nation is not dependent upon ethnicity" entirely, with no replacement
• {9} [109] - restoration of edit #8 after removal on NPOV grounds

These edits may seem minor, but they change the meaning of the statements in the article, all of which are sourced. No new sources were provided, and no coherent explanation given for the edits. Michael in oc apparently is not happy with the expression "American nationalism" and wishes to replace it with various combinations of "American exceptionalism", "American identity", or "patriotism". Unfortunately, he has provided neither a source not a rationale for these changes, and they change the meaning of information derived from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIR as it applies to Michael. What you wrote makes no sense to me. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather than replying to my request for a specific example of where I was a revisionist (after you made the accusation), it appears you've decided to make a personal attack instead. How is that helpful to this situation? Michael in oc (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The evidence of your revisionism is above, clearly laid out, with your bias sticking out like a sore thumb.

I'm concerned that if you dig in your feet over something as relatively minor as this, that allowing you to edit the article further may lead to even more intractable disputes. I suggest that this may be your last chance to open a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus for your edits, because further behavior along these lines could easily end up with a topic ban from editing the article entirely. I don't espouse that now, but it could easily be coming down the pike if you don't start following our norms of behavior.

That's not a threat, because there's no way that I, alone, can impose a topic ban on you, only admins or the community can do that, it's just an observation from 13 years of experience here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I peeked at Michael in oc's deleted contributions, there are no, so Beyond My Ken's assertion that this user is newish is correct. Speaking as an administrator, you both need to tread on this topic very, very, very carefully. While its not explicitly covered, the page itself could reasonably be construed as party to the American politics 2 Arbitration Case (according to how I'm reading it, anyway), which covers "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed", and given that there is now a dedicated Trump section it wouldn't be too out of the realm of possibility for this page to end up under sanctions if it looks to be a forthcoming battleground article. @Michael in oc: You need to take this to the article's talk page and discuss it there with the community. I am not asking you to like that option, but I am encouraging you to do it before we need to call out the artillery. You also need to adopt a consensus based mindset. If you expect to make it to the end of next year on here then you need to learn how to work with others in (usually an easy thing to do) and to compromise - or worse, walk away from - discussions where you aren't going to win (typically learned the hard way). In Beyond My Ken you have a very good teacher whose advise I would take to heart, because its advise that is attempting to keep you from getting owned. To make sure you both make an effort, I'll put some protection on the page for the time being. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Beyond My Ken did a good job in providing a well-written expansion on the content I added before the article was locked, something that's helped me appreciate their abilities in supporting article development. I still see problems with the underlying assumption of the article being posited, that there's a single form of American nationalism that we should all adhere to based on one Towson University associate professor (as opposed to American patriotism which has traditionally been used to understand American identity when compared to other countries). Also, the Thanksgiving illustration description is not supported by the cited sources. However, to respect the process, I plan to raise these items in Talk before the article is editable again. Michael in oc (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

IP Rangeblock

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

---

Hi. With feelings of Groundhog Day, I'm back to request another rangeblock. The 39.44 range I reported earlier was blocked for two weeks, erm, two week ago. True to form, they are back, this time 39.44.229.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is part of some (very) long-term abuse. As you can see from that link their antics at 39.57 have been blocked for 3 months. I'd be grateful if this could be done for this range, and ideally, a bit longer to save everyone a bit of time. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks NRP! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sansonic's unsourced additions (again)

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

---

Following a recent report here, Sansonic was blocked for a week for persistently ignoring warnings about unsourced additions. The block has now expired and Sansonic is adding unsourced POV material again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'd like to formally propose a topic ban for Sansonic from all pages about Pakistanis in Britain, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support that, and suggest adding British politics to the scope. Sansonic appears to be pursuing a political agenda, for example replacing a photo of a very prominent Labour politician with a much less prominent one, adding an irrelevant image accompanied by a trivial fact about a Conservative politician, adding unsourced material critical of the Labour Party and adding unsourced positive material about the Conservatives. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There's some ridiculous nonsense here that has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  I support a wider tban too, as suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Broadly construing an intersection of topics ("Pakistanis in Britain") seems like a recipe for trouble. Suggest expanding it to anything related to Pakistan or Britain; that leaves plenty. The idea is to steer well away from temptation. EEng 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also support that, but I don't feel comfortable changing the original proposal after there are support !votes... Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support or something to its effect ^ IWI (chat) 21:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I concur with the proposal above in extending the topic-ban to Pakistan-related articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support EEng's version His idea is better, since the disruption could likely extend to either one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and more British politics in India should be in the block as well. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. Just looking at their recent edits, I'm seeing some quite trouble signs. And the historic stuff is just as bad. Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Closing comment - there's clearly consensus for the ban as amended and so I have enacted it. Since this is a very broad ban, I looked for myself to see what kind of edits Sansonic has made outside of the ban scope, and it's not promising. There aren't many, but the few that I came across are very often adding unsourced commentary, much of it negative. Examples: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. There's also the downright strange, like adding a see-also link to British Pakistanis from Mexican Americans, and these edits changing the caption on an image of a Banksy artwork on the Israel-Palestine border wall to say it was an image of the Indian border with Pakistan, which stayed in the article until I reverted it just now. This editor is on course for a site ban and picking up speed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gross incivility from Filipjako

I did not particularly enjoy being profiled by Filipjako, nor did I appreciate his conclusion that my supposed ethnicity, which he somehow inferred from my user page (?), prevented me from properly contributing to Wikipedia.[115] My initial attempt to bring WP:PA policy to his or her attention was met with the conclusion that I have "a lack of historical knowledge and abundance of ignorance and stubbornness". I do not recall the last time I started a thread here, if ever, but I cannot help feeling that this behavior will persist, and I am rather disgusted by it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think this qualifies as a personal attack so a block will be needed IMO. IWI (chat) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Admins this is getting a little urgent now; they won't listen. IWI (chat) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you think you're immune from an edit warring block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for 3 hours to allow for people to calm down. In the mean time, @Filipjako:, you have to stop with the edit warring and the name calling now, or you will be blocked from editing for a long time. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: you are edit warring too, stop it. Conversation thru edit summary needs to stop, conversation on the talk page needs to start. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The formatting was wrong against guidelines; it's not just me who reverted them, although I can see a WP:BOOMERANG coming my way. I'm no threat to this project; they are. I, despite what I thought, didn't break WP:3RR either. I will now back off now that admins are aware. IWI (chat) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you do not think that you broke 3RR, then you are not clueful enough to be inserting yourself into other people's conflicts. Your presence here made the situation worse. Please find something else to do, besides finding conflicts at ANI you can wade into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I'm out. IWI (chat) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple vandalisms by IP user using various addresses from University of Leeds

IP User 129.11.174.166, 129.11.174.84, 129.11.174.134, 129.11.174.139, 129.11.174.142, 129.11.166.201 has been extremely persistent in wishing to introduce nonconstructive edits to EPR paradox. At first, I thought that this person was merely a misguided, but good faith editor. Now it has become apparent that this person is a vandal, with edit comments like "Kindly make proper research before you type. Einstein's name in German is spelled [ Ahlbert Ainshtain ]" with gross misspelling of Einstein's name. Both User:Skysmith and I have been undoing this person's edits, and in the Talk page, User:Spasemunki mentions that he has had previous experience with this IP editor back in October. I had reported this user on WP:AIV and I was advised to bring up this situation here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

School range block, maybe? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it may have to be. Pranksters like this one can really ruin things for everybody else. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The range among these IPs is 129.11.160.0/20, and it is now blocked for two weeks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Aankan Das

I am just letting you know that the user had repeatedly uploading images that's is clearly a copyright infringement, having look at upload log as all I see is deleted per F9, apart from one which is going through Files whenever would be deleted which I vote for Speedy Delete anyway. Not only he uploading copyvio images, he has a history of disrputive editing, especially violating WP:BLP, which he was blocked one for 31 hours back in September, and again week later for copyvio for 2 weeks, all by the same admin. Sheldybett (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if the simple fact that you've brought this to ANI is enough to stop the problematic uploads. @Aankan Das: You have had many warnings, any further dubious uploads will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 09:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick canvassing

Issues of canvassing and socking on Malcolm Kendrick's deletion discussion since he advertised it on his [116].

Please see Malcolm Kendrick deletion talk, there are twelve accounts there, and others on the deletion discussion. Yet no admin has taken action. Absolute madness. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't panic, the closing admin will see through all that. It might be useful, though, for someone to volunteer to oversee the discussion starting now -- it really is a doozy. EEng 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

My eyes are bleeding from that... wow, at a very minimum someone with a bit of subject knowledge should make liberal use of collapse boxes there. Ouch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The canvassing suggest to me like it's probably meatpuppetry rather than socking. I do have concerns about the sentiments in this edit which seem to suggest the editor may try and engage in a WP:OUTING attempt [117] although the statement itself is confusing since it first says ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history ..... His sole interest in the matter is who you are but then says No-one is trying to find out who you are. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I declined a protection request at RFPP for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick, because in my view as long as the IPs keep civil it isn't hurting anyone if they want to post messages there. If someone else disagrees feel free to protect the talk page. As far as the AFD itself goes, the meatpuppetry header says all are welcome to state their views. The closing admin will sift through all the gubbins. Fish+Karate 14:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading more carefully it sounds like the editor is suggesting the subject of the article wanted that, but no one including them is trying to do it. I don't understand how they can say it's 'not unethical' if they seem to recognise that canvassing to out someone are in fact viewed far more harshly and 'unethical' than ordinary canvassing here regardless of whether the people canvassed follow the call or instead just !vote on the AFD. But whatever I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Buried in the "Dr. K" blog (linked by the OP at the very beginning of this thread) is an exhortation to "closely monitor appropriate articles and make sure the alternative story gets out there", listing these:
  • Lipid_hypothesis
  • Statin

Editors with an interest in this kind of thing may wish to watchlist. EEng 01:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2602:30a:c0f1:e8a0:dc24:cda1:35d0:21e8 & SSROnTop

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

---

This user has been repeatedly vandalizing SSR under his IP account and was given three warnings. He makes a new account under the name "SSROnTop" and continues to vandalize with that account. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 04:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IP and account blocked for promotion. Acroterion (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

MarnetteD

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

---

• MarnetteD (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

My edtis at [118] [119] [120] and [121] were reverted by MarnetteD. Please report him to Administrators and don't let revert or rollback my edits. Thanks. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your changes all appear to be unsourced, refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Secondly, your changes were reverted, so accoring to WP:BRD you should now be trying to discuss these matters on the article talk pages. This is not matter for AN/I at this time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And you forgot to notify MarnetteD about this thread. I've done that for you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But I mean, MarnetteD is a furious user who reverts my edits in 5 pages. So I have revert MarnetteD's edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(EC) If you're confessing to retaliatory reverting another editor when there was no actual problem with their edits, you should expect a WP:boomerang block per WP:point especially since you don't even have an actual worthwhile point. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmargi

• Drmargi (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Same as MarnetteD, Drmargi also undoing my edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted this to a subthread of the previous discussion. You just told us you didn't actually have a reason to make those reverts, so reverting you was quite proper and I was planning to do the same. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted again so I reverted and was going to report but already blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Surtsicna

This very active and valuable user is well known to habitually personalize many discussions, disregarding basic guidelines under WP:TPYES that we should not do so, and for often being aggressive. Something like this is an example where I believe the habit carries this user into behavior which is inappropriate for Wikipedia work. Thus, I feel the user needs a reminder that civil behavior is expected of us all, always, toward each of us, no matter how much we disagree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This and this are the edit summaries that SergeWoodzing called a "personal critique", then again, and again. Even though he acknowledged here to another user that it was the edits that were called unnecessarily pedantic, he still has the need to portray the other user as a bully and himself as the victim. A half of virtually every discussion with SergeWoodzing, be it mine or someone else's, consists of the other user explaining that he or she did not mean to hurt his feelings. I have had it. This behaviour of his has been plainly described as ridiculous whining for complaints like these at ANI before. Others have observed this annoying tendency too, saying: "Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry 'I'm being personally attacked.'" I do not appreciate being pestered by these accusations, and I feel that the user needs yet another reminder that histrionics such as these waste everyone's time. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, this is really a content dispute. FWIW, there's inconsistency among the Swedish consort bios, concerning what to show (Queen of Sweden or Queen consort of Sweden). With the likely accession of a Queen regnant (which will be shown as Queen of Sweden in the pros, I assume), we should likely get the consistency established for the Swedish consorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a reoccurring behavioral problem, not a content dispute.

Citing 8-year-old arguments isn't helpful. I have learned a lot about civility and WP:TPYES over the years. What I want to know here - indeed need to know - is whether or not the community considers this acceptably civil behavior, such as we all are expected to adhere to. I too can be sarcastic, belligerent and personal in every debate and edit summary, if I choose to be. Nowadays, and for years, I have chosen not to be. I've learned that such behavior is neither allowed (???) nor constructive. Please reply to the issue! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Five years ago you were told at ANI that there is nothing uncivil about commenting on edits, yet here you are again. Obviously you have not learned a lot since then. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

PS In comparison to the reoccurring behavioral issue in this case, the article content is of little of no importance, to me or to this community. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

195.77.253.82

195.77.253.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Shared IP that has engaged in repeated disruptive editing and vandalism despite several warnings. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The user has two edits today and has been warned once. If they continue, please file a report at WP:AIV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Kiran Ashraff

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

---

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

---

• Kiran Ashraff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any administrator here may wish to revoke talk page access, as this user continues to make disruptive edits after being blocked. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Fish+Karate 15:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

A range block is likely required, as individual has returned with 'new' registered account. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The account in question seems to be Head Of Prime Minister. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed & he'll likely keep creating new ones, until he's range blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Dr Silverstein

User:Dr Silverstein is sending emails to admins mentioning serious issues on Wikipedia. Then does not react to returned emails. See user's talk page for a few reported cases. Olivier (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the users is not an admin. I don't think, as Olivier suspects, that the e-mail are "bogus". The user has some very strange ideas. I've received two e-mail from them (see "my" section on the user's talk page). It would help if the editors who received the e-mail disclosed the contents. I don't see how they can be considered private at this point, but if you prefer, you can forward me the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to Olivier. I prefer to make sure that an admin is interested in hearing me out before I write up my thoughts to them. Sorry if it has inconvenienced the administration. Thanks. Dr Silverstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Dr Silverstein and suggested them to report issues on this noticeboard or refer to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm if the issue they are referring to (but not detailed) is really serious. Olivier (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Kdn66n2

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

---

• Kdn66n2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It’s been a few weeks since this user was unblocked and they continue to add unsourced content to articles. See [122], [123], and [124]. 66.87.149.196 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

85.190.76.192

Special:Contributions/85.190.76.192 Repeated vandalism / removal of content plus referring to moderators as homophobic slurs. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Me by HafizHanif

HafizHanif is sending personal attacks on Talk:Muhammad#Alternative_proposal:_Central_figure (diff) and most recently, stated (here) "myopic minds fail to understand", referencing Pinkbeast. I removed their initial attack, only for them to declare me "dead" and restore it (here) - death threats.

Note that in the scope of the discussion, none relate directly to the debated modification to the article. Instead, I am being targeted and harassed for religious reasons and ad hominem (basically, the first two points and possibly the fourth on WP:WIAPA. Please ensure this stops. Thank you, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd first. The record clearly shows after I cited primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, that particular edit was removed by the person making the accusation. They also called out "personal attack". I understood that accusation meaning I personally attacked the man believed to be a prophet (the article's subject - who has been dead for hundreds of years, thus the mention of a dead man), not the contentious editor. I had previously expressed how Muhammad was, according to his poetry and what contemporaries talked about him, a murderer (the cutting off of heads and fingertips). I think this is an issue of comprehension and a misunderstanding regarding the subject of my comments. Notice also I had ceased corresponding with the edit warring editor after an inability to convince them of their subjective nature regarding the subject matter. As to my response "myopic minds", I am referring to what I previously mentioned regarding editing efforts from unqualified persons and the apparent inability to objectively edit the article. It is a general statement regarding the unsophisticated nature of most Islamic articles. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not relate to the specific controversial edits being debated, and you used your interpretation of facts to launch a personal attack (you even said "I personally attacked"). Article talk pages are not soapboxes and I merely responded with the accurate info to diffuse the situation and prevent it from escalating. It is never acceptable to insult the mental states of individuals as any editor out there with a mental disability may feel distraught (disability is listed on WP:WIAPA). – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So I note two things:

1. This was not a death threat against User:Batreeq; Batreeq misunderstood the "personally attack a dead person" edit summary.
2. If User:HafizHanif doesn't stop taking every opportunity to attack Islam all the time while pretending he is only having policy discussions, I will just block him indefinitely, and with very little if any further warning. Multiple editors at that page have told HH to knock it off because he is disrupting discussion. He needs to listen to them if he wants to keep editing here.

Hopefully that's clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, just saw your response - thanks. Can the unrelated/attack comments be purged from the talk page and replaced with {{RPA}} (no, it's not "censorship" but it's not a soapbox for general discussion of the article's subject [as the top notice reads] either, HH)? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of removing soapboxing that's interweaved with comments by others. IMHO it causes more confusion than it solves. In particular, it's not good for an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) to do it, that often just escalates things. I'm more interested in preventing future soapboxing. Other admins may disagree, so if others think it should be removed they shouldn't worry about my disagreement, they should do whatever they think best. I'm about to go offline for the evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Both HH and Batreeq could use a bit of encouragement to stick to the point. What's this screed got to do with the question at hand? Also, Batreeq is engaged in a lengthy exercise in IDHT - it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of commenting editors are perfectly happy with "founder", but they won't knock it off. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman bot-assisted rollback of good-faith edits

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

---

I came across this while patrolling RC.

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted 416 edits] earlier today. The reverts all bear the same time stamp to the nearest minute leading me to conclude that an automated tool must have been used. Each of the reverted edits had been made over the course of the preceding few days by Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs). GS then left a uw-vandalism3 template on Veryproicelandic's talk page, has not made any explanation (or any other further edits)) in the ensuing several hours. There was no discussion that I could find, of any kind, prior to the mass revert.

Veryproicelandic's edits appear to me to have been good-faith edits, made manually, at considerable effort, to articles on a wide variety of topics. I am frankly baffled as to the substance of the underlying content dispute.

GS has previously made large numbers of reversions that also appear to be bot assisted as in each case, dozens of contributions (albeit fewer than 416) of a single user are reverted within a one-minute period. See, for example, this instance where 100 edits by an IP were reverted. There was a prior incident where over 300 edits by a group of related IPs were reverted over the course of several minutes; subsequently, GS asked for assistance here at ANI to place a range block citing the addition of unsourced material.

I am concerned about this at five levels:

1. WP:BOTP, a policy, covers the operation of bots and has specific requirements for: prior approval, rate throttling, flagging, and communication. The policy makes it clear that high-speed, bot-like edits require prior approval, even if they involve manual steps.
2. WP:ROLL, a guideline, discourages the use of rollback for reversion of good-faith edits, and requires explanation on a suitable talk page in those instances where good-faith edits are rolled back.
3. There is a pattern of a lack of discussion before and after these rollbacks are performed. For example, GS archived these questions without answering them after reverting over 100 good faith edits for which he had offfered only a generic explanation.
4. The reverts are indiscriminate and are not limited to removal of unsourced information. Some of the reverted edits are ones that made mechanical or formatting changes only where sourcing cannot possibly be a factor. Some reverts do not result in removal of the unsourced material but rather reversion to old statistics.
5. GS's own very similar edits to the same subject material typically do not include sources, again leaving me baffled as to the real motive.

This conduct appears to have been going on for quite some time, for example a year ago, after reverting a good-faith edit, GS characterized the edit as vandalism.

I would like to ask for the community's assistance in reviewing the matter, clarifying policy as appropriate, and providing a proper welcome and show of support to the editors who have been on the receiving end of this.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I know the tool used. If you have a look at User:GiantSnowman/common.js, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is installed for GS. That will be the tool used to make these edits, and it is very useful for dealing with bona-fide vandals (so useful, I forked it). I need more time to make a judgement on the edits at hand, but an accidental misuse of this tool will revert all edits by the user where their revision is the current version (to some limit, of which I'm not entirely sure). So clearly, using this on an established editor can produce the disastrous results above. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the tool is only limited by the number of edits that can be displayed on a contributions page, which is limited to 500 if you use the UI, and (I believe) 1000 if you modify the URL. Has there been any discussion specific to the use of the "mass rollback" tool and how it fits in with WP:BOTP? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You can hotwire the url to get up to 5000 entries on a user contributions page or page history. EEng 02:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the tool also automatically leave a vandalism warning on the user's talk page? Because GiantSnowman did that too. Unless this is an unintended side effect of using the tool, it makes it harder to believe that the mass reversion was accidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I took a quick look at the code at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, and no - it does not appear to leave vandalism warnings. SQL^{Query me!} 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

this warning template is most likely manually placed, based on the edit summary.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He has reverted my good faith edits as well, including correcting "men's" to "women's" under "women's competition" here: [125], and a researched change to Fuad Ibrahim, which he realized was correct... [126] ater reverting three times and telling me I would be banned from Wikipedia because of vandalism: [127]. It's awful "administrators" like him that give Wikipedia a bad name. Thank you! 70.21.191.151 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that we wouldn't have to escalate this here, but I agree with Uninvited's report. I noticed this today when GiantSnowman mass-reverted 50-100 edits of Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs), with a generic edit summary typical of rollbacks against vandalism. All of the edits I spot-checked (including the specific one that was warned) were not vandalism — they were good faith attempts to clean up {{underlinked}} banners by adding more wikilinks and undertaking other minor improvements of prose, or in some cases removing inappropriate underlinked banners when there was no opportunity to add more links. I wouldn't necessarily have made quite so many new links myself, and there were some minor style issues (e.g. capitaization) with the edits, but that's beside the point. Veryproicelandic is understandably upset, and despite much of a day having passed, GiantSnowman has yet to apologize or respond (despite being required to per WP:ADMINACCT). I thought at first that this was a case of an inexperienced editor misusing rollback privileges and having to be told how to use rollback (or if continuing to not get it to have rollback privileges removed) but with Uninvited's investigation above I see now that GiantSnowman is actually an admin who should definitely know better, and that this is part of a much bigger problematic pattern of edits. I think we should give GiantSnowman some more time to respond, but (as I already said on VPI's talk page) I think an apology and a reversal of these reversions is called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've heard (or seen) mass reversions of an editor's edits (though never nearing 416 edits!) and I've wondered how to address this situation when I've had questions about the rationale. Labeling an editor's work "vandalism" when they are good faith edits can only lead to trouble when you have powerful scripts that can do mass reverts which clearly means that each edit isn't being evaluated as to whether it is damaging or helpful. I look forward to hearing from GiantSnowman and, frankly, any admin who makes use of these scripts to do mass rollbacks on what the threshold is for reverting all of an editor's work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a nuclear weapon - treat it with care. The warning on my script's documentation page

I use my user group highlighting script, which naturally limits the damage a misapplication could cause, I cannot see myself reverting an extended confirmed user like that. I'd absolutely say that these scripts should only be used in the case of obvious vandalism, but would oppose any move to ban them as against BOT policy. If used correctly, these scripts are an invaluable tool against vandals, especially sophisticated vandals making automated edits. WP:IAR is clearly applicable to their existence. For example, my script fork effectively is a form of non-admin block, in that it reverts a user's edits almost as soon as they are made. Automatically. In theory, a user could start making good faith edits and I would be responsible for any resulting 3RR violations. I have reverted a good faith edit with it due to a dynamic IP, where a former user was good faith, the current a vandal. Anybody using these scripts must understand that they are powerful tools, which deserve respect. I will check contributions with this script if there's an older edit that's been reverted, and restore good faith edits caught in the crossfire. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's a pretty dry-cut case of semi-automatic editing. Tools never need to be approved and the user using the tools are 100% responsible for the edits made on their behalf. Of course obvious bugs to the tools should to be addressed by the author(s), but no one is obligated to use the tools.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, I would respectfully disagree based on testing the script just now. This is functionally identical to a bot. I was able to revert a few changes my test account made rapidly, with no intervention or human judgement for each edit. In a semi-automated editing scenario, I would picture it as in AWB, where you must confirm each edit. SQL^{Query me!} 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• @SQL: This is basically WP:MEATBOT, which is quite clear that a short burst of fast editing is not itself disruptive. If these tools were used for their purpose, we wouldn't be here. I'd persoanlly stick witb 100% operator accountability, rather than restricting the scripts themselves. My script is particularly interesting wrt to the bot question. It makes a succession of very rapid edits, which a human has effectively signed off on. Then it starts making automated edits at a far more sedate pace (unless the target account is running a bot). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Bellezzasolo, I may have phrased that poorly. The point I was making was that the script I tested can't be described as semi-automated editing. SQL^{Query me!} 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that I've had dealings with either GiantSnowman or Veryproicelandic. But if this happened to me, I'd be seriously upset about it. According to his user page, Veryproicelandic edited under a previous name (which he identified on his user page). His edit history goes back to 2006, and no blocks under either. Unless there is more to this than immediately has been mentioned here, I think some accountability and editorial recompense is due here. GiantSnowman has some explaining to do. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) When I see a mass edit, I expect to see a link to the relevant discussion. If I don't see one, then the editor making the changes should expect to have the edits mass-reverted per WP:BRD. I will normally post an appropriate warning. Mass changes like those made by Keizaal are absolutely and completely unacceptable and stretch good faith to breaking point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The least courtesy that could be extended in that situation is an edit summary. The script offers that facility, when reverting non-vandalism there's no excuse for not using an edit summary, certainly with a change of that scale. If an edit summary is used, a rollback is treated as an undo, wheras plain rollback is not meant to be used for good faith edits. Again, the facility to leave an edit summary is offerred. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Giant Snowman's account got hacked and somebody else used it to make all of those rollbacks? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an Admin making mass edits that make no sense. Best to block them until there is an explanation on their talkpage. This could get seriously out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The best explanation I can find is that this was a mistake; should the reverts be mass-unreverted? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree I'm more inclined to believe this was a miss click of some tool or mass rollback script. Hopefully when Giant Snowman is back they will be able to confirm as such. As far as the issue of the account being compromised; it doesn't seem likely. I'd expect to see more damage from a compromised account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my script does prompt for confirmation before performing a mass rollback. Not that click-through syndrome isn't a thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting GiantSnowman also mass-rollbacked 500 of my edits a couple months ago. He then tried to self mass-revert, but this didn't really work and he ended up re-instating vandalism in countless pages. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• A couple of things:
  • If there's consensus that these edits weren't vandalism or vandalism-adjacent - which it looks to me like there probably is - someone can just mass rollback them all back to veryproicelandic's version (with an edit summary!) But be careful, as L293D notes, it's easy to mess up. The only edits that you can display on the contribs page are the ones you actually want to revert.
  • It makes no sense to claim GS is somehow "violating ADMINACCT" by not replying, when he has not been online since doing the rollback and vandalism warning. We are not required to be online 24 hours a day. He hasn't even seen all this yet.
  • To answer Liz, I've used the mass rollback function a few times, always either with a clear consensus, or because it was clear vandalism. It's use isn't rare. I would never have used it in a case like this.
  • I have a few ideas about how this could have happened, varying from 100% good faith mistake to 100% bad judgement, with a couple of possibilities in between too. The thing to do is wait until GS logs back in.
  • Whether a mistake or a bad decision or somewhere in between, an apology is in order. But we need to be patient and wait for GS to actual log in before he can give one.
  • Suggestions about blocking his account without waiting for an explanation is a perfect example of people who shouldn't be editing ANI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

417 incorrect rollbacks => no evidence there was a reason for this => possible compromised acct. Given we have had 4 Admins compromised recently it is not an unreasonable possibility. Maybe Flo should not be editing ANi? How much damage could an Admin account do with automated tools while we ponder. Flo would likely block a regular account first and ask questions later. Legacypac (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (following from notice at WP:BOTN): User driven scripts are outside the purview of WP:BAG to review, and the closest part of the Bot Policy I see is in affect would be Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing - which says that disruptive edits are just that. As such, WP:DISRUPT applies more than anything in the bot policy so far as the 'edits' go, as well as the rollback guidelines. User scripts themselves require no approval, however the effects of using such a script (including the possibly of disruption due to flooding of RC or WL's) is the responsibility of the editor executing such a script. In this case, the script appears to have legitimate uses for administrators in specific situations. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I remember the incident L293D is referring to, though I don't recall where the relevant discussions took place. But IIRC, L293D was using AWB to make very minor changes (U.S. to US) in line with updated MOS guidance, and pursuant to a local Wikiproject consensus, rather than a community consensus? I think that's what it was. And it caused a bit of unnecessary drama, but the situation was under community scrutiny and there was never any consensus that his changes should be reverted. It was a minor thing, and the standout moment of the whole situation was GiantSnowman inexplicably executing a mass rollback on L293D, which resulted in actual damage to the project. So, this isn't a one-off situation, and I'm utterly shocked that they haven't learned from that debacle. Mass rollback is one of the most drastic measures you can ever employ on this project, and it should only be used in extreme situations and with extreme caution. I don't think GS is demonstrating the judgment/competence required to use this tool properly, and the issue can and should be easily rectified by deleting the script.  Swarm  talk  03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • most drastic? Special:Nuke would like a word... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Having had the chance to go out, eat dinner, and play trivia... I've had the opportunity to ruminate on things. I still submit I did nothing wrong. I know I've been pure in my intentions, which, in the worst case, should've merited a "here's what you're doing wrong, Veryproicelandic." Nope, I instead got the Order of the Up Yours (the message), with "You Schmuck" clusters (the reversions). For no reason... and I read the vandalism section carefully. Twice. If I vandalized this site, then Michelangelo vandalized the Sistine Chapel. Now, I -do- appreciate the support I've gotten from all of you in these comments, I should like to say...

As it stands, I'm going to withhold my goodwill from the site (I call myself a Wiki angel, or whatever it's termed when someone comes here in an attempt to make small changes for the common good). I'm not going to be angelic when some mod with an issue says to desist. But please know: this is me refusing as a matter of principle and mild retribution. I wasn't banned. This is my choice to stop helping. I don't like being called an asshole, whether that term be rendered as vandal, saboteur, miscreant, or whatever...

What would I like to return to my angelic ways? An apology in nice big bold letters from Snowman (bold, not normal typeface), and reversion of -all- my edits, all 400+ he screwed with, less any he or anyone else can show are demonstrably improper. Which shouldn't be any.

I'm interested in seeing how this all plays out. I have no financial or other stake in this, save for my reputation here. Let's thus see how Mr. Snowman replies. And I invite him to do so forthwith. I'm listening. Tell me why I'm a vandal, amigo. I'm waiting... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Inspot checked the rollbacks and you are no vandal User:Veryproicelandic. All the ones I checked were good improvement. I suspect this was a stupid error or a compromised acct. Either way all your edits need restoring amd you are more than free to revert GiantSnowman on every edit that someone else has not already restored. It will be good for your edit count. Keep up the good work. It is users like you doing linking, fixes and deorphaning work that make articles more useful to readers. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Legacy. I appreciate the affirmation. I say again: if I'd wanted to do malevolent things on here, I would have years ago, and to historic levels. I'm not like that. I'm about being positive in my influence. I will not screw with a resource of the world. My things are linking, stubbing, and making stuff readable, for those who care. Deorphaning is a more time-consuming thing- I want to create change that can be seen and felt quickly. One day I might go back and fix titles, etc, that are lacking in sources. I do what I like to do and can do easily. Lots of work to be done on matters like that. I'm not too good at creating infoboxes and charts on here, so I let the next guy handle those. And I continue to wait to know why I'm a vandal... Veryproicelandic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GS is in the UK so I imagine will see this fairly soon, please be patient and remember not all editors are in the same time zone as you. Fish+Karate 08:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, what a thing to wake up to. No I have not been hacked or compromised. No I am not using a bot. I used the 'mass rollback' tool. I then went to bed. No it does not add a vandalism warning automatically - I did that manually. I mass reverted Veryproicelandic's edits because I noticed them (amongst other things) deleting valid infoboxes from numerous articles (see eg here and here) and using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries in the process (what 'flag' was removed?!) Having read the above thread, I apologise unreservedly to Veryproicelandic for the misunderstanding, and have self-reverted my edits. I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future. GiantSnowman 08:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'flag' being removed is the {{underlinked}} template, as I suspect you know perfectly well. ‑ Iridescent 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I've only ever called them 'maintenance tags'. In the area I edit, 'flag' refers to literal flags. Nice to see you AGFing though, particularly given that the editor in question has accepted my apology. GiantSnowman 09:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this mess except to say if I saw that that edit summary I would probably have asked the same thing, 'what flag'? I've heard of people talking about 'flagging' an article for attention and understand the meaning, but I don't recall I've ever heard someone refer to such a template as a 'flag' before. Again, I make no comment on any other aspects of the case like how to respond given such confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems you did the same yesterday to User:Jamieroot11, reverting 32 edits in one minute, with a vandalism warning, only to have to remove your warning and apologise, while still blaming the editor because they didn't use a good enough edit summary[128]. In reality, they were updating stats in the infobox with the edit summary "Updating bio stats"[129], so it seems strange to blame thee edit summary for any confusion.

On 2 December you reverted some 40 edits by User:Footballinbelgium and gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. Too bad that the things they added were to the infobox (where everything or nearly everything is unsourced) and were correct, e.g. Sam Valcke[130] really is 1m88cm according to Soccerway, and Marius Noubissi really is 1m80cm according to The final ball, in both cases sources already present in the article.

The same day you rollbacked 11 edits by User:Statements2019. You left a much nicer statement at his talk page, and they have since been blocked as socks, ut the use of rollback for non-vandal edits like this one, which was improving the article (replacing outdated unsourced content with up-to-date unsourced but correct content), is again an incorrect use of rollback.

At first sight, your batch of 30 rollbacks in 1 minute to edits by User:Davidstockholm also was incorrect, the editor genuinely was improving articles with updated statistics (e.g. here) and you rollbacked him with a final warning anyway.

With this editor, I see you giving them warning after warning, going back for months, even though they made correct edits all the time. These football articles are sourced to soccerway and the like, as you well know, and there is no need to add a new source to change the match statistics, nor to reflect a new club if that is updated in soccerway as well. I mean, it's not as if you add sources for your changes[131][132][133].

Getting it wrong once (even if it with 400+ edits) is not a problem. Getting it wrong all the time is seriously worrying. I don't know for how long this has been going on, but it is a big problem. Fram (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've used rollback to "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (as allowed by rollback!) when it appears that edits are not constructive or vandalism. In the area I edit (football/soccer), we have a major problem of editors adding incorrect statistics to infoboxes. I review a small sample of edits, and if they appear dodgy, I mass rollback. If I'm wrong, then I'll revert and apologise. I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it. GiantSnowman 10:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think given the wealth of evidence above about your use of mass rollback, it might be better to check all the edits you are going to rollback before you roll them back. Or stop using the tool entirely. Fish+Karate 10:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly. GiantSnowman 10:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect at play. If he was not an Admin his rollbacker flag would he gone and sanctions would be imposed. What was done to Veryproiceland is pretty serious, leading to assumptions it had to be a misclick or compromised account. To roll back over 400 gnoming edits as vandalism based on a misunderstood edit summary and no spot checks is pretty crazy. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Err As I've said, I did do a brief sample before rollbacking... GiantSnowman 10:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Legacypac here. I was looking further back, and the pattern is the same over and over.

28 November; you rollback 5 edits by User:Caitlinwebb3 and then block her. The reason? While the editor is updating the stats (correctly), they don't simultaneously update the "club-update" parameter (which indicates the last time the infobox numbers have been updated). Slightly annoying, perhaps. Rollbackable vandalism, no. Blockable, certainly not. What you do is revert the editor, and then readd the same info 8 hours later, with the proper formatting.

On 27 november, you rollback 50 or so edits by User:Cipow, including stuff like this? This, again an editor adding correct info according to already present source Soccerbase[134] (and who does update the date parameter in the infobox)? Like the editor said to you: "It's very simple - You saw one or two articles with no references and reverted 20 odd perfectly referenced articles."

Please stop using rollback completely (certainly the mass rollback tool), and don't block editors for what are basically formatting errors but in any case good faith edits. A next ANI discussion about these issues, if they would continue, is unlikely to end without sanctions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening. GiantSnowman 11:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could start by going over your batches of rollback use, vandalism and block warnings, and actual blocks, and self-revert and/or apologize to those where no vandalism happened. Fram (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already self-reverted and apologised to editors in question. GiantSnowman 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? User talk:Caitlinwebb3, User talk:Cipow, User talk:Davidstockholm, User talk:Footballinbelgium, ... LikeI said above, you issued a non-apology at User talk:Jamieroot11, blaming the rollback on his incorrect edit summaries, even though these were quite accurate and clear. You didn't apologise to the other four I identified. I have seen no evidence of self-reverting either. And that doesn't even take into account that you should check your many other cases of mass rollbacking as well, as it seems unlikely that these problems only started a week ago or that I found all instances in this short time. Fram (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the topic of "club-update" / "pc-update", this has been discussed quite recently at WT:Footy here and User:GiantSnowman isn't the only admin who takes the view of reverting if the timestamp isn't updated. There is reliance on WP:BURDEN to support this, and there is a tendency to WP:BITE or worse. It would be much better for the reverter to correct the information, or as a minimum include a helpful edit summary and talk page notification if reverting these WP:AGF edits. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Super Mario thing is specious - that refers to an admin being desysopped back to a regular editor instead of being blocked/banned, much like big Mario gets reduced to little Mario instead of dying. None of the rollbacking carried out by GS involves use of administrative tools, and his sysop status isn't really relevant. If a common or garden editor was making errors in the use of the mass rollback tool, in this way, they would be given clear instructions to either stop using it, or at least stop making errors using it, and if they failed to understand why what they were doing was unhelpful and/or carried on doing it, they'd be formally barred from using the tool. I don't see why we would need to change that approach here. GS has been given a clear message that he needs to take far more care. He has agreed with this, and has apologised, and he will be well aware that people will be 'checking his work'. I think that's sufficient for now. Fish+Karate 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is the second time in a week that I've come across a example of questionable judgement by GiantSnowman and I don't find his responses so far to be satisfactory. Fram's suggestion that he stop using mass rollback seems prudent under the circumstances. GiantSnowman would you agree to voluntarily stop using mass rollback and to carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now on? In other words, stop using rollback to simply revert edits that you personally disagree with.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will. However, your insinuation that I have misused rollback on 'edits I don't like' is false. All my reverts have been good faith, "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" as is allowed. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that inadvertent misuse is any different to repeated incompetent use. Either applies. Leaky Caldron 13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Question re the rollback tool

To my memory, I've never used the tool, because I never figured out what it was for. Well .. at least I now know what it does. Any article history where I compare revisions gives me 3 Rollback options (Rollback AGF/Rollback/Rollback Vandal). So, obviously it's an admin tool, because I certainly would not have loaded a script for something I know nothing about.

Given what has happened here, and given that this seems to not be the first for this editor, in light of what Fram has listed, could we eliminate the Rollback as part of the admin bundle of tools? It would be optional based on request. If mis-used, the tool could be taken away from an admin without eliminating the other tools. We could grandfather in the tool for those admins who already have it, and proceed forward with the rest. This seems to be a dangerous tool to automatically include in a set of tools. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: What you see is not an admin tool. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC) See------------------->

I have rollback pretty much from the moment it was available, and I have extended experience with the flag, but to be honest, I never used (consciously) these three options you mention (which appear above the edit summary), I only use the rollback button which is right of the edit summary, next to the undo button. This one is harmless as it only can roll back one edit. (I still sometimes misclick, and just today I accidentally rolled back several edits on an ArbCom Case page, but this is easy to notice and to repair). If the rollback vandal button performs mass rollback without a prompt, it is dangerous and must not be shown, but I do not believe this is the case. (I wanted to test it in my sandbox, but was just scared). I guess mass rollback comes from a script. If this is the case, mass rollback must in any case come with a prompt, and can not be accepted if the edit summary is not filled in manually. But I guess this is a different problem, not what you mention.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The mass rollback tool is not an admin function, it's a bit of javascript. The only "rollback" that 'comes with' the admin bit is the same one everyone else with rollback permissions has, and I do not think that this needs to be unbundled from admin rights. WP:NUKE is an admin function, but that's not what GS used. Fish+Karate 12:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. A usual (non-admin) rollbacker can only roll back all edits of the same user on one page at a time without a prompt.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly - (rightfully) slap my wrists for being overzealous with my reverts, but do not say I have been abusing admin tools or anything like that. That is not the case. GiantSnowman 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction

The discussion above should not have been closed so abruptly, and certainly not with so much vagueness. I understand GiantSnowman has agreed not to use mass rollback in the future and that he will carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now ("For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will."). If I have misinterpreted his intent, please say so.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas (such as this incident and some others highlighted by other users). GiantSnowman 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. I don't think that's satisfactory in light of the previous discussion. I'm not at all confident in your judgement to use mass rollback in the rare circumstances that it's actually called for.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does GS not simply require the user who has made the "defective" edits to change them / rollback themselves? That way there is no room for error. There is no rush. Leaky Caldron

Daiyusha and CSDs

Hi all,

I'm afraid I've got a problem with Daiyusha (talk · contribs). He's got the New Page Patrol bug and has been helping out at the backlog, but has made too many incorrect calls on CSDs. A more comprehensive list is available on his talk page, but in a brief summary, I can see notifications of declined speedies on Christopher T. Adams, Sid Saab, Spencer Zimmerman, Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana, Wolfgang Glöde, Sunil Kalda, Angry Ferret, Jora.com, Sejal Kumar, Draft:Dewan Singh (with a rationale of "fails BIO1E" which isn't a CSD criteria) and Stafford Crossman in a little over two weeks. Given that since WP:ACPERM we get far less legitimate CSD A7 candidates these days, this is a significant number in my view. Despite giving him a clear heads up to stop it and getting an assurance that they would, I still see notifications of declined speedies. So, I'm asking the community if it's time to think about some sort of sanction, such as a topic ban or restriction from CSD tagging. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You could try a 'final' warning on their talk page. Explain to them as clearly as you can why what they are doing is not right, using the examples you've mentioned here. They clearly want to help so we should be trying to guide the user, not topic-banning them. It may be worth suggesting they move to AFD work for a while, that often gives people a clearer understanding of deletion policy. Fish+Karate 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Christopher T. Adams and Sid Saab indicate they have not even understood WP:NPOL which both clearly meet as elected members of a notable parliamen and Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana was extremely hasty in violation of WP:A3's waiting period, so that's certainly bad. That said, I think a topic ban is not (yet!) required since they seem to have slowed down now, although they should be advised to take their time when making such edits. If the problems reappear, we can and should consider a ban from deletion tagging. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page to try and help. Fish+Karate 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay , I'll only tag super obvious CSDs, or else i'll ignore them, have been ignoring many such articles for a while now, I am tagging about 4-5 articles a day, you can see that I have clearly decreased the number of CSD decline notices have decreased from 2 a day to about 1 every 3 days. As per your advice, i'll stop my CSD tagging for a while unless its super obvious, and proceed with PROD and AfD tags then. Daiyusha (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would take Fish&Karate's advice and switch your focus to AfD. You'll get experience in what the community considers an acceptable article for the project, and by the time you've got some experience there, you'll find your CSD tagging should improve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

116.97.246.210

Suspected sock of Albertpda is edit warring a request that was declined from his old account. A block is needed; they are obviously a sock. IWI (chat) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)