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

Contaldo80

Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] [2] [3] [4]

Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[33] [34]

• From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."

Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

Diffs on: General incivility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[66]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Response:

Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([67]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
  Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
  How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [68] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual hat boxes

-EEng

That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that I didn't explain my reasons. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have to make an apology. And a complaint. You're right you didn't delete my contribution this article. You did, however, evidently follow my edits to that article page and argue for "keep" (presumably to counter my argument for delete). You then came onto this page to insinuate that I am hounding BrianCUA, when in fact you have arguably been hounding me. This is all becoming rather depressing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I eventually deleted my own contribution out of concerns that it could be seen as improper. The only questionable decision I made was to vote Keep, which I rectified. There is nothing left for you to complain about on that article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about my being thoughtful and even-handed. Much appreciated. I try and accept I don't get it right. I think what especially wounds me about the language above around "righting great wrongs" is my sensitivity to homophobia. It feels like making contributions that ensure even-handed representation of LGBT issues is challenging the "mainstream" and that it's me taking on the world. I'm probably wrong in feeling that way (and I'm sure that's not how it was intended) but that's how it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, without really weighing in on the dispute here, I'm going to comment on your approach. To say that you sometimes feel like it's me taking on the world is a nice piece of succinct introspection. If you recognize that you feel that way, I also think maybe that means you need to give yourself a bit of a breather. Not quit, not "retire," but maybe take some time off, even if only just from topics that are clearly so close to your heart. I work in a field where people are pretty passionate, and I sometimes have to remind my staff that they not only do themselves a disservice when they allow stress levels to max out, but they also do a disservice to their projects. The same may be true here. Again, that's not a comment on your contributions, but rather a friendly attempt to point out that if you are feeling the way you described, you need to give yourself some time and space to breathe until you feel centered again, but for your own mental health but also for the betterment of topics/issues that are of such great importance to you. The only other thing I'll say on this topic is that while most other editors might not have such strong personal feelings about this particular topic, I can absolutely guarantee that you are not alone in your desire to see even-handed representation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed a sanction against you. The various types of difs I provided are examples of WP:Tendentious editing. I didn't make up a category to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your complaint about me you have referred to me as someone "Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV". I do not see how that relate to any existing editorial guidance. I am being mocked for "righting great wrongs" e.g. adding LGBT related material to articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that you want to add LGBT material. That's all fine and good. It's that you give it undue importance. For example, take your insistence that a section heading include the phrase "gay" or "same sex" in the section on marriage. You argue that somehow readers will understand the word "marriage" to include "divorce, fatherhood and family," but they won't understand marriage to include gay marriage. Somehow, to say otherwise, is dishonest (a frequent charge of yours) and you accuse me of "trying to hide away?!" something when I point out that WP:MOS calls on section titles to be concise. This is what I mean when I say that your arguments often amount to I don't like it.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair assessment. Contaldo80, we aren't against you because you add information about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. The problems are aggressive reverting, talk page incivility, biased language on articles (in my opinion), and undue importance. You also don't get to delete sourced information simply because it isn't part of your pet topic. See here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of people who want to define "marriage" as "a man and a woman", I can certainly see where including gay marriage could be useful. Still, I think it would help if the user in question was a bit less fighty, and took the time to state their arguments in a calmer manner rather than lashing out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, TonyBallioni, Display name 99, EEng, Blackmane, Grandpallama, and Icarosaurvus: and others: This conversation seems to have petered out, but I would like to come to some kind of resolution. Several (Iban, Tban, warning, six month restriction, etc) have been suggested. Can we agree on one? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time as far as I'm aware that there has been a general complaint about this user at AN/I, and so I think we tend to give a little WP:Rope. There is a consensus amongst all those who've offered their opinions here that while Contaldo80 may have done some good things on Wikipedia, his editing style is clearly too aggressive and hostile. I don't think an IBAN is good because Contaldo80 edits the same types of articles as many of us, and this would prevent editing by one user or another from being challenged by the other side. That doesn't really work. I'd be fine with a general warning that further excessive reverting (even if not technically a violation of 3RR) will be considered disruptive editing and that this, along with talk page incivility, can or will result in sanctions. Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been somewhat on hiatus lately. I don't see that there is a need for sanctions at this point. The issues between the LGBT movement and the Catholic church are complex and not something that is within Wikipedia's remit to solve. More use of dispute resolution, less raised hackles and a warning to stop edit warring is the order of the day. Contaldo80 and Briancua are both long time editors and their contribution to the project is to be commended. However, I shouldn't be needing to point out to long term editors that they should know better than to be edit warring and bickering in this way. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are preventive and not punitive. (I am not sure I agree that is prudent, but it is the rule.) Therefore behavior that required a block that wasn't provided does not get a block after the fact. However, if a user has engaged in conduct that should have gotten a block, that should be taken into account when another violation is committed. I have not researched the long history in full, but I do see that Contaldo80 did taunt the filing party, and that should have resulted in a block. Therefore my recommendation is that they be warned that future contentious edits will result in an initial block of 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Warning that if a block is necessary, it will start at 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I like and agree with this approach, and with the reasoning you've offered. I agree with Icarosaurvus for the most part that there just needs to be less tension (and I hope that Contaldo80 will take to heart my pointing out that he has internalized his editing to a degree that is unhealthy), but I also was very bothered by the taunting, which I don't feel should be overlooked, and for which neither any justification nor any apology was offered. No block seems warranted at this time, but I do think a warning about behavior has been demonstrably earned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I approve of this as well. The 5-day block thing obviously can't go on forever, so we have to set a length of time for it. 6 months seems adequate. Display name 99 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how I forgot about this, but Contaldo was warned against edit warring just three weeks ago. A search of the archives shows that he has been warned and even blocked many times, including several this year. I'm not sure if or how that will affect people's judgement in this case. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I reported him once as well. He was warned here. If Contaldo80 ever does this again, whoever makes a report has to include these diffs. The next violation ought to result in a block. Display name 99 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a warning as hard as the one RC recommends is needed at this time; Ultimately, they do good work, and want to improve the encyclopedia, and they're far, far from the most vitriolic user I've seen. (Further down on this very board, there's a user calling a moderator ugly for some imagined bias.) I'd suggest a formal community request to "tone it down", and see if they consent to doing that voluntarily before seeking harsher sanction. Generally, I agree with Blackmane's assessment that the issues between the Catholic Church and LGBT people are complex and outside our ability to solve, and the issues here likely tie into that. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jeffman12345 persistent block evasion, rapid disruption

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

---

• Jeffman12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been IP hopping and causing massive disruption to many pages. Many of his edit summaries are similar. We need an edit filter to circumvent his edits. Also, a lot of his edits appear to be done by proxies. funplussmart (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes, I do know about WP:DENY; I only posted this here because it needed the urgent attention of admins. funplussmart (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth considering an edit filter, but at this point just blocking the IPs as they appear may be sufficient. Even the densest vandals who do this recognize fairly soon how much of their time they are wasting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

About the edit filter, I requested one at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Jeffman filter. funplussmart (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OH yeah that one *yawn*. Thanks for requesting the filter. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. I've been blocking the creations in the meantime :-)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have noticed this as well. His "father" has been asking for him. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be getting quite a lot of his nonsense on August 12th of the Current Events Portal' Icarosaurvus (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

His latest favorite trick is replacing Wikipedia namespace redirects with some vulgar message. Patrollers seem to be picking them up pretty quickly, but special attention needed to these? David Brooks (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I've waited a few days to be sure, and he seems to vandalize every day like some manner of perverse clockwork. It is slowing down, but I'd rather not have such a public facing page vandalized at all, if possible. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Kalamarnica mass-adding undiscussed templates and unsourced info to articles

Kalamarnica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user mainly inserts the template "Historical affiliations" (styled as a quote box) to the articles. I recently got dozens of such edits on my watchlist such as this or this. Whereas I believe there are issues with the info the user adds in these templates (it is not sourced, usually not derived from the articles, and I see some errors and also some selectivity), these issues could have been discussed. The main problem is that they have never been discussed in the first place, and I have never seen any consensus that the templates should at all be added in the articles. I went to the talk page of the user and found my own message left three years ago which the user simply ignored [69]. I left another one [70] which the user ignored as well and continued adding the templates. Today I got this edit on my wacthlist which, among others, adds unsourced info to the article, and I am not sure this info is actually correct. The user produced dozens of such edits per day and apparently never edited their own talk page. I would think a mass revert would be in order, but I am obviously interested in opinions of other users how this problem can be solved. Thank you for the advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify that if there is no reaction here (which is fine AFAIC) and the thread gets archived I take it as no objection to reverting their contributions as unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to re-word your thread title to standard English; right now it doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you meant "Has anybody had any experience with User:Kalamarnica?" But even that doesn't explain what the problem is. It's best to state the problem in the thread title so people know right away what to they are going to be opining on. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Softlavender:, I changed the thread title, I hope it is clear now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: I've blocked this user indefinitely as they've been given ample time to respond and it appears to be a textbook WP:RADAR situation. I've made it clear that they will be quickly unblocked if only they indicate that they've read and will follow WP:V and WP:COMMUNICATE. As for the edits themselves, I think these are clearly good faith attempts to improve the articles and in fact the history nerd in me loves the idea. But the issues you raise are certainly valid and I agree that a mass revert is the most appropriate course of action. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you, I also think they were making good-faith edits but failed to communicate properly. I hope they will respond somehow. I will still start reverting their edits at least in the articles I have consoderably contributed to.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

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

---

Well, as advised above, this seems to be a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem." Article was protected for a spell against the subject's IP edits; now the main account has returned after four years to delete content he doesn't like. I don't know whether to request another page lock or a user block. Discuss. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The article was at one point burdened by a lot of trivia, POV content and innuendo (see the Talk page archive), but that's been cleaned up for a while now, and the more recent excisions have been unwarranted and, yes, chronic. A user block might or might not be effective, because he just edits from IPs. Page protection too is only as good as long as it's in place. Beyond those two things I'm not sure what tools exist to resolve the problem. FWIW, several editors appear to have the page watch listed, and pretty quickly revert these changes as they occur. It's an annoyance but IMHO not much more. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Points taken. My observation, perhaps a bit draconian, is that if the abundance of IPs--not to mention the registered account--have not been a net constructive presence here, then the main account can be blocked and the article indefinitely protected. Too much WP:OWNERSHIP by the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I do think that indef page protection isn't generally favored and so just offered the observation that, to me, the disruption isn't that great in the larger scheme. I intend it as information rather than any kind of challenge! JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks John. John and others you know the problem. Although the page has been cleaned up from 4 years ago, Bang and others continue to add material that is not factual but rather insinuates unethical behavior on my part. The entire Digi paragraph is a good example. There is no wrongdoing, actually no story. At the very least wait until a final resolution. John that was your view and yet you backed down to Bang’s pressure. You all know the way things are phrased or arranged can determine what a page is saying. My page is not an encyclopedia but rather a gossip page which is why I have asked afor a group of independent editors to take a quick look. Short of that I try and make changes. Also, obvious additions are not made like my most recent election as Democratic National Committeeman, and Chairman of the Metro Board for the third straight year, or my contributions to Metro. Why is that? Anyway, please take a look and let me know. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:4D3D:5B0C:6939:C452 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On final comment. I went back and read some of the entries from exactly 4 years ago this week. Why can’t you fix my page and leave it alone. Why are you constantly adding gossiping information. It’s been 4 years!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:4D3D:5B0C:6939:C452 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Yet another violation of IBAN by Alansohn

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

---

Alansohn was IBANed for interacting with me here. In that ANI discussion it was specifically proposed that "This would specifically mean no participation in AfDs started by Rusf10". On April 1 he first violated his IBAN by responding to a AfD I started which resulted in a 48 hour block [71] He has now done exactly the same thing again here. To be clear, Alansohn has never edited the article Andrew K. Ruotolo, so I don't know what his interest is in the article. It appears that he is again following me around in deletion discussions. Since this is now his second violation of the IBAN, I believe a more severe sanction is necessary this time.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, you blocked last time. I see a clear violation of the iBan; in fact I see a good reason to renew it. Alansohn, I don't know what you were thinking--am I missing something? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • • @Drmies: For what it's worth, NeilN might not contribute to this discussion. He's been gone, probably on a break, for just over a week now. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:A59D:FEDA:2161:43E (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the AfD came up on my watchlist equivalent. I paid no attention to who had nominated the article, as it had appeared that the editor in question had stopped editing for a few months. I will self revert the edit in question. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Find this very hard to believe, especially since you took the time to look at the previous AfD. Also, I have not been inactive "for a few months".--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the vote has been removed. If I had believed that the editor was still editing, i would have been more careful. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies This is the link that I use to monitor articles. It turned up a new AfD and I had been more active at AfD over the past few days for articles listed on my "watchlist". I looked at the new AfD, the old AfD and the article, never paying attention to who had nominated the article for deletion as the editor in question had apparently disappeared. Now that I know that this will be an issue, I will be far more careful. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to remark that I had recently wondered whether Rusf10 had stopped editing, or just gone on a summer holiday. I notice him because he often nominates article for deletion and iVotes to "delete" articles on notable topics that merely seem to need to need better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The IBan was in late March 2018: [72]. Rusf10 has been editing steadily and continuously since at least November 2017, without break [73], so Alansohn's explanation doesn't make much sense, especially since he said he also looked at the old AfD from six months ago which was also nominated by Rusf10 and which Alansohn had also !voted on [74]. Looks like a clear violation to me. --Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Rusf10 stopped editing about a month ago, and just came back. Also, it seems to me that the last time I waded into this Rusf10 vs. AlanSohn thing, that it was two sided. This AfD is a rerun of one in which both editors were involved before the IBAN. and it makes me wonder why the IBAN is not applied to both editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • He had a 3-week gap from July 21 through August 12. Why were either of you tracking his edits? Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, it's not months, but after checking the edit history there's a gap of nearly four weeks with no edits. Again, if I had known or even thought to check I would have. The vote has been removed and I will be far more cautious in the future. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No, he's made at least 150 to 875 edits per month since October 2017 [75], the only gap is a 3-week gap from July 21 through August 12. The fact that you were ever even tracking his edits does not look good for your IBan situation. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Softlavender, I'm not sure what the number of edits per months has to do with the fact that there was a gap of several weeks where there were zero edits and the only reason I thought it was longer is that there were no potentially overlapping edits for several weeks more. I'm not sure why there was a gap of several weeks, but I had seen no edits after what looked like an abrupt disappearance. If I had thought that the editor was still editing I would have checked more carefully. My guard was down because of the lengthy break. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • First of all, why were you tracking his edits? If you have an IBan with the person, you should not be doing that. Second of all, you claimed the gap was "nearly four weeks", when it was only three weeks. Third, if you were tracking his edits, and you looked at the previous AfD of that article which he had nominated and you had left an lengthy, detailed vote on 7 months ago criticizing the nomination [76], and you cited your previous !vote and the previous outcome in this current !vote [77], it beggars belief that you didn't check who re-nominated it. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/suggestion (edit conflict) Whether Rusf10 took a couple of weeks off is completely irrelevant to the situation, he nominated the article for AfD. I consider it to stretch credulity that an editor exercising even minimal care at Afd – ie reading the nomination statement – would fail to notice the nominator, especially considering the history of this. Also, the IBAN does, in fact, apply to both editors but the particulars of each are different. Among other things Rusf10 voluntarily accepted his restriction while Alansohn's had to be imposed at ANI.
  At this point, based on as I remember it, Alansohn not really acknowledging that their behavior has been problematic that it is time for more serious sanctions to be applied. Maybe a two week block to get the point across to him and thereby prevent the further disruption which is assured should he fail to get said point. Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also think that Alansohn couldn't have missed the nomination/statement nominator, but I hate blocking for this. The last block was a while ago. A two-week block is maybe warranted technically, but it's harsh. Rusf10, please do not think that I am not taking this seriously because I have in the past criticized you: Alansohn has spoken much harsher words about me, and I probably about them. Or I'm in a good mood cause the dishes are done and we made delicious muffins for tomorrow. Anyway, I suppose we could see if there's more admin input. I favor a warning (I think this counts as one) and, as I said before, maybe we should renew this iBan when it expires. After all, if there've been only two infractions, and thus tension was relieved for all those months, one can say it works, no? Plus, OH, never mind: I see now that Sarek already dropped the block. OK--I don't like it but I can't disagree. Alansohn, please be more careful next time... Drmies (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:, I'm glad you at least acknowledged WP:INVOLVED this time. Take your own advice and let's get input from other admins.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Rusf10, please don't shift from asterisks to colons in mid-conversation. Secondly, I acknowledged no such thing, but nice try. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Drmies:Wow, you are incredibly arrogant. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you are WP:INVOLVED since it is "construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." The rules do apply to you, you are not above the law.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm goodlooking too. Stop pinging me: I am not interested. You can't manufacture a conflict and then claim someone has one with you. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Not really, I've seen pictures. With your attitude (not just with me, towards others too), someone really should consider a desyopping case for you. You're lucky that I don't have the time for that right now.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Rusf10, a word to the wise: Your over-the-top personal attacks here are way out of line, and are not helping your case. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) That's not going to get any traction. Some editors simply do not get along but this is not the hill to die on re this conflict. INVOLVED does not address conflicts where an administrator has expressed 'strong feelings' which may be perceived as being indicative of a loss of objectivity as a result of administrative interaction. Considering the ways such a rule could be gamed the best that can be done is to politely request the administrator to consider their ability to engage as an administrator and depend on their personal ethics and introspective abilities to withdraw. Alternately, I guess one could take it to AN but I doubt such a request would be received with sunlight and kittens unless one had a very good argument and lots of diffs to demonstrate loss of objectivity.
              I have no opinion on the validity of the issue raised but I can pretty much guarantee that repeatedly bringing the matter up on every encounter is going to significantly weaken any position you may have – if the above commentary has not destroyed it outright. Jbh ^Talk 02:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
              • @Jbhunley:I'm not going to lay out the entire case here (its not the time or the place), but these two links will provide the background if you're interested [78] [79]. In the second, realize that I'm not the only one to tell Drmies that he is INVOLVED. I find it disturbing that he is the first admin to show up here when there are plenty of other who could deal with this.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week, per previous block for 2 days, and highly unpersuasive defense here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Extension of IBAN?

Can we extend Alansohn's IBAN? It is set to expire in about a month. Since he has violated it twice already, it seems that once it expires it will be back to business as usual for him.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support extension to indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBAN extension (edit conflict) per the existence of two documented violations. There is no evidence that any finite expiry can be set. Also, @Rusf10: I assume you will continue with your voluntary restriction as long as the IBAN is in effect, is that correct? Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:If the community wants that. Remember, only Alansohn has violated his restriction, not me.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

After the initial period expires I think whether you continue yours is up to you but whatever your choice I think it would be good for people to know as they consider this. My preference would be to simply continue with the status quo – it has worked, it keeps the people from seeing the situation as somehow "unfair", and it shows you are willing to go 'above and beyond' to insure things remain calm – but I see no reason for the community to force you to do so. Jbh ^Talk 02:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support --Swarm ♠ 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite extension. I'd also support some manner of warning/action against Rusf10 per WP:NPA. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Opposeindefinite extension of the IBAN. It seems very possible, although irresponsible, that the violation was unintentional, and he self-reverted when notified. However, it also seems possible that he was testing. Either a short block or a shorter extension of the IBAN would seem more appropriate. We are not here to punish editors, but to encourage them to behave maturely so the encyclopedia can be improved.Jacona (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  I'm changing to Support, if considered with the proviso per power~enwiki and JzG (allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article.

• Support, with block- yes, the ban should be extended to indefinite. But it should also come with a block of some duration, otherwise what's the point? What difference would it make to extend the ban if Alansohn can break it whenever he wants, as often as he wants, with complete impunity? Reyk _YO! 11:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just noting Alansohn was blocked for a week for this violation. Jbh ^Talk 11:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yeah the excuses above lack any credibility. Its one thing to accidentally comment in a discussion someone you are ibanned with has also participated in, its another to comment on a proposal that was explicitly opened by the person you are ibanned with. Its entirely unbelieveable that you could vote at AFD without reading the nominating statement, and if you genuinely are voting at AFD without reading the nominating statement, you need to be banned from AFD. And I dont think anyone here thinks Alansohn is that incompetent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support increase in length to indefinite. Something needs to be done. We don't need a Site Ban, although stubborn editors should bear in mind that that is the ultimate remedy. Extending the IBAN is less drastic than a TBAN from AFDs, so extend the IBAN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
• Support The explination of not knowing who started the AfD might hold water if there were dozens and dozens of comments, and the editor picked it up by chance. However, at the time of the comment from the diff above, only TWO other editors had commented. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that they didn't see who had started said AfD. If the current block, and the (seeming) consensus here isn't enough, then we all know where this will end. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef IBAN - Which part of "There is a consensus in support of this proposal: Alansohn is banned from interacting with Rusf10, subject to the usual exceptions,"[80] is hard to understand ? ..... As they've now twice violated it it should be extended to indefinitely and if they continue they should be shown the door. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBan because the one right now will not work (see everyone else's rationale for why). Abequinn14 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBan with a clear indication that further violations will result in much more severe general sanctions (longer/indef blocks). It's pretty clear the community is tired of this behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if Rusf10 is allowed to nominate for deletion pages created by Alansohn, he should be allowed one comment in response (focused on whether any reason for deletion is met, not Rusf10's motivation for nominating the page). I don't feel the situation here has been resolved, so I can't support allowing the IBAN to lapse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with caveat allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per power~enwiki and JzG (allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article), but I'd also like Rusf10 to voluntarily pledge to avoid interaction with the user, as Jbhunley mentioned above. Edit: Though, the latter is not a condition for my support. Just something that'd make the whole situation easier. byteflush _Talk 23:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Other than at ANI, I don't believe I have interacted with him since the IBAN has been in place.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course, I realize that, I was just asking if that would continue if IBAN was extended. I know it probably would, but it's better to have it explicitly said; I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying you violated your voluntary IBAN. =) byteflush _Talk 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with power~enwiki's and JzG's proviso; this should be extended to indefinite; though Alansohn can make one single content-based defense of AFDs for articles that he has contributed substantial content to. The ban should not expire, and Alansohn should avoid directly interacting with Rusf10. --Jayron32 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive modifications by User:Scout_MLG

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

---

Hello, I am French (sorry for my english) and I usually make small edits on military and weapon pages. Since several months, I noticed on my watchlist that User:Scout_MLG is adding a lot of strange edits :

- unsourced edits : for instance [81], [82] or [83]

- personnal point of vue : for instance [84], [85] or [86]

- dubious edits : [87], [88] or [89]

- stupid edits : [90] (an US mortar used during Soviet War in Afghanistan ?), [91] (Stingers during Sino-Vietnamese War ?), [92] (T-90 in Afghanistan ?)

He has been warned that he was making "silly edits" by User:Thewolfchild but is still going on. A large part of my edits is going through his edits to undo them. He has also been warned that he needs to provide sources by User:Garuda28 (User_talk:Scout_MLG#Rifles_and_other_weapons_edit), by User:TasticalHic (User_talk:Scout_MLG#Armor/helmet_edits) and by myself (User_talk:Le_Petit_Chat#hello).

What should we do ? Is there a simple way to undo all his dubious edits ? I am not a specialist in ammunitions used by firearms so I do not know if some edits, for instance this one are wrong or not.

Thanks--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say unless the user can explain their edits in a convincing way, a block should be considered.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, this user appears to have done "extended confirmed grinding" as stated on this earlier thread. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have reverted all of Scout MLG's many unsourced edits (except for one listing ISIS as an enemy of the US) and left a warning on his talk page. Scout MLG has made some ok edits [93] [94] [95] [96] but most of his edits have been additions of unsourced content[97], often wrongly listed as minor edits, they have also made a few edits like this [98], adding bans to policies. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Scout MLG just said that he doesn't know how to source [99], so I gave them a link to WP:REF, this may just be a new user who doesn't know what they are doing yet. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to teach Scout MLG how to fight vandalism, per their request, and they seem to be doing ok, I think this is a new user who needs help, and a block would violate AGF. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Thanks for your help. Are you willing to keep an eye on and help this user? I'll be honest, I would otherwise be leaning towards a WP:CIR block, but if you think they have potential and are willing to help guide them then I think that would be an even better outcome. Swarm ♠ 22:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:Yes, I have been watching them and they seem to be learning how to do counter-vandalism work, I understand the CIR concerns, but I think they have potential to be a productive user. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User who seems a case study in WP:NOTHERE

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

---

John2o2o2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently had an encounter with another editor on talk for InfoWars and something about his comportment struck me as off. Here's a diff containing the bulk of our interaction: [100]. In that time, he !voted twice and complained he was censored when another user reverted. He complained he was being harassed and also made statements that were borderline anti-Semitic. So I did some digging and found a history of behaviour over several years that included treating talk pages as soapboxes, prejudicial statements and complaints of harassment when challenged:

With regard to the Scotts language

[101] [102]

With regard to the word "villein"

[103]

With regard to the marriage date of Dorothy Vernon

[104]

With regard to Campaign to Protect Rural England

[105]

On an Administrators' noticeboard discussion of the block of the user Clockback

[106]

People sometimes get passionate and overreact on talk pages; goodness knows I've lost my cool a few times in the past. But there's a difference between that and a very specific pattern of problematic talk page behaviour. As such, I thought it appropriate to bring it to this venue. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of these diffs are quite old, but the user is somewhat clearly showing a pattern of using talk pages not as tools for discussion toward improving the encyclopedia, but rather as forums for free comment on article subjects, and advocates the sort of "Free Speech" wherein the user can say whatever they want and nobody is allowed to challenge it because Free Speech. Clearly that's not how Wikipedia works. I don't think there's a sanction in this, but the user ought to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox, that talk pages are for discussing editing, and that many free web hosts are available upon which the user is free to say whatever they like about immigration in rural England. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the OP (I advised the OP to open this thread on my talk). Editors who immediately attack others by accusing them of harassment are not editors who need just a little gentle guidance to get along. I would give this editor the choice of taking mentorship or a WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE block. I'll volunteer as the mentor if that route is taken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite six years on Wikipedia, this user is still basing his position in content disputes on feelings, opinions and assertions. Sampling through various disputes he has been in over the years, I do not see any attempts to appeal to either policies or reliable sources. Generally, it simply appears he likes to chime in to discussions even when he has nothing useful to add, though he probably doesn't realize he has nothing useful to add. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

They do seem to overly rely on emotive arguments. But (to be fair) have also been subjected to some PA's. So it is hard to say which came first, their reaction or the reaction to them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I saw, the PAs came after they made some comments which were, at the very least, antisemitism adjacent. And that doesn't change that their soapboxing is a trend throughout their time on Wikipedia, which has not been short. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I saw they made a very poorly worded comment about double standards about what is and is not fart right, which was overreacted to (and both it and the replies to it can all be seen as soapboxing). There were ways it could have been argued against without recourse to name calling (such as "there is more to being far right then backing Israel").Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now now, Slatersteven. So typical of Wikipedia's liberal bias to talk about the "fart right". Bishonen | talk 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

Well they do have Trump as a figure head.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just coming back to revert my regrettable silliness. Too late. 😐 Bishonen | talk 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

This user was not subjected to personal attacks: They were subjected to some (overly, I would agree) vicious criticisms of their comments. But given the nature of the comments that inspired said criticism, I'd not even bother warning the editors who responded. That comment (the first diff from the OP, the one in the first paragraph) was just one set of triple parentheses from being an indef-blockable act on its own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticizing Zionism as it pertains directly to the Israeli policy of occupying Palestine isn't necessarily antisemitic, but an account with a history of anti-immigrant and prejudicial rhetoric bringing up the supposed Zionism of the Wikipedia founder as an opening remark is somewhat different; and that's part of where my concern arises. This is a contributor who is WP:NOTHERE and part of their MO seems to be to insert dog whistles into talk page commentary. That's not something I'm willing to leave unchallenged. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There is enough blame to go around. What is a Trollometer? Please search within the RfC for "Trollometer". Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I just said, that was about the editors comments, not about their person. And frankly: I agree 100% that the comment this was said in response to looks like a poor attempt at trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It is nonverbal. We try to use our power of speech. We don't draw pictures. Why don't we draw pictures? Because some of us don't have artistic skills. Wikipedia is not predicated on the ability to communicate nonverbally. A user cannot be expected to respond with a little picture. Therefore we stick to verbal communication. Nonverbal communication that implies a user may be a "troll" constitutes a personal attack in my opinion precisely because it cannot be responded to using the same means of communication. Therefore the bottom line is that we must stick to verbal communication. That is basic. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is -frankly- one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in my entire life, not just here, or recently. Congrats. Your every premise is false (that text is "verbal" communication, that some people can't understand charts, that charts must be responded to with other charts, that there was no "verbal" -meaning "textual"- communication in Guy's trollometer comment and that Guy's comment couldn't have been read without the chart and produced the same exact meaning), your conclusion is utterly ridiculous (that we should only communicate using text) and your implication (that there is some policy or widely-followed guideline requiring us to only communicate using text) is obviously false, as any experienced editor knows. Literally every single aspect of that argument is fatally flawed in such a way that its flaw alone would damn that argument to logical failure. I will be saving the diff of you making it, as the argument is so phenomenally bad that I'm actually quite impressed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so that was a real "chart"? Forgive my ignorance but I wasn't aware of the Trollometer. I assume you will be creating the article on the Trollometer? Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's some irony to be observed in a user trolling over a graphic depiction of a Troll-o-meter. But, since you've started talking about him, it would be a courtesy to ping JzG to let him know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, that should be Guy Macon. Sorry, Guys! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not trolling. Actually John2o2o2o took the nonverbal goading with aplomb. They responded "Lol, thank you. How sweet. I'm very flattered." Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and in the same comment, the very next sentence in fact, they added the equally ironic "ad hominem attacks are very typical of liberals", and then proceeded directly into more ad hominem attacks on Jimmy Wales. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hence my initial post—"there is enough blame to go around." Whether you harass a person verbally or nonverbally you are raising the temperature in an already contentious environment. But give the user a break—John2o2o2o also is subject to getting agitated in response to the harrying behavior of those around him. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No he did not he acted like a tit, even blaming me for removing a post of his I did not. At the very least he does need to be told to not go out of his way to have arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I think "likes to chime in to discussions even when he has nothing useful to add, though he probably doesn't realize he has nothing useful to add" probably applies to around 90% of the population of (pick any country) ;-)

But yes, the practice of using talk pages for airing his own opinions and then lashing out with harassment claims when people disagree (including "Leave me alone", "I'm not talking about this any more" etc) is antithetical to the way we work here. I don't think any sanctions are appropriate now, but mentoring could be worthwhile if he'd accept it - and we already have a volunteer! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If they'd accept mentoring from MPants, that'd satisfy my concerns for the time being. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So if they accept mentoring form a user they are in dispute with? That seems to be a very odd solution. I agree mentoring is a good idea. But surely it should be an uninvolved user?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This editor was in dispute with you and Guy, not so much me. Besides, all I did was say I was willing; something that I doubt many other editors would do. I've volunteered to mentor at least three other editors formally, and at least one of them is fairly productive, last I checked. So if you know of someone better suited than I, I'm more than willing to step back and spectate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Given they explicitly asked you to leave them alone [[107]] is this a reasonable request to make of them. Especially this [[108]],. which seems a tad antagonistic to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, you once thought me making the most inoffensive joke possible was a beyond-the-pale personal attack, so forgive me if I doubt your judgement on these matters. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm impressed you all have the patience to even offer mentoring as an option here. Near as I can tell, this user's primary interaction style with anyone who presents evidence which is contrary to his established position on anything is to pitch a tantrum and falsely claim they are being harassed. This isn't a noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards. There are diffs above dating back to 2012. This is a person who has had plenty of opportunity to learn the way the project expects us to behave; he just willingly refuses to do so. I say he's had his mentoring; in the 6+years he's been doing this, he's been directed to the relevant policies and guidelines many times. He just refuses to abide by them. At this point, I'm not sure Wikipedia has anything to gain by keeping him around. --Jayron32 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Even a "noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards" does not deserve to have a pictogram thrown at them as that is not how we operate around here. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Even a "noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards" does not deserve to have a pictogram thrown at them I'm beginning to wonder if your activities in this thread might rank higher in that pictogram. I'm dead serious, by the way. Poe's law and all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought I already said that I'm not trolling. You don't see the validity of my point. Fine. I have a detractor. You are welcome to your opinion. But I deny that I'm "trolling". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• As I've noted before John2o2o2o is pretty much a "free rider" on Wikipedia. The account's been open since 2012, but in that time they've only made 221 edits, and of that paltry number, only 34 (15.4%) are to articles. The most they ever contributed to any one article is 4 edits to Ancestry of Elizabeth II. What they seem to like to do is talk: 187 of their edits (84.6%) are to Talk, User Talk, Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk. They have no edits to files or categories or any other space which would indicate they they were working to improve the encyclopedia in some non-Mainspace way. [109]
  In short, this is not an editor who's contributing to the project in such a way that we should tolerate any eccentricities or problems connected with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bullshit. We shouldn't tolerate "any" eccentricities from anyone. But we do. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, "Bullshit" right back at you, we're tolerating yours right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from any "eccentricities" I may be displaying I think it is an undeniable fact that many indulge in "eccentricities". I understand your point that "this is not an editor who's contributing to the project in such a way that we should tolerate any eccentricities or problems connected with them" but participation in a straight-laced manner is hardly a defining feature of this project. Examples are too numerous to mention. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not meaning to be argumentative. Striking through my post alleging "bullshit". Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've struck mine as well. My point is that Wikipedia is --whether or not anyone wishes it or acknowledges it -- mostly a meritocracy, so the more you contribute to the encyclopedia, the more leeway you are usually afforded. It's not a one-to-one relationship, and -- obviously -- even very, very prolific editors can and do get blocked, indef blocked and banned, regardless of the value of their contributions; being a high-volume or high-quality editor is not in any way a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. However, with someone who contributes very little, or -- in this case -- almost nothing -- there's really no wiggle room at all. It's simply not worth our time and effort dealing with their disruptive behavior as we wait for them to become a constructive editor. This editor has had six years to become a valuable contributor, and what we've gotten is a measly 6 article edits a year and a bunch of crap. The upside is simply not worth the downside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I have some sympathy there is (and even I can see that) a difference between an overly forthright users who actually, make valuable contributions and a user who just appears to think this is room 12.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudos. I do love a good Monty Python reference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously a well thought out and non-drastic response is called for. That means giving the person a chance, and another chance if necessary. The encyclopedia functions on the participants' ability to speak—both in article space and on Talk pages. I also engage in a lot of palaver on Talk pages, but I try to do so respectfully and I try to promote forthcoming dialogue. Such dialogue is all but obviated by resorting to pictograms. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you recall above, where I pointed out that Guy's textual comments retain the same exact meaning as the combination of his textual comments and the ascii art chart? Because it's still true. For someone who claims to be an artist on their userpage, you seem to have a highly irrational distaste for visual communication. Also, please read Poe's law if you're not familiar with it. You may very well be earnest, but someone trolling by picking the absolute most ridiculous line of argumentation from which to defend this editor would very likely have made the same arguments you have. You've been told by two different editors now that you appear to be trolling this thread. If you really are arguing in good faith, then maybe you should ask yourself why two different editors agree that your arguments are of such a low quality as to appear to be trolling, and adjust your view of this issue accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't do "visual communication". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Explain Filespace, then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify. We don't do visual communication when it serves the purpose of putting down another editor. Not only is it disrespectful but it frustrates response. The advantage to verbal communication is that it facilitates dialogue. We are at our best when we communicate with crystal clarity, not with the relative clumsiness of pictograms. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So (and let me get this straight your objection is not to calling him a troll, but doing so with a picture as that is harder to rebut then just saying "Your a fucking troll piss of you vile piece of rectal sputum"? You really think that would not shut down any chance of dialogue any more then a drawing of a pile piece of rectal sputum?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I should have said that "the advantage to verbal communication is that it has the potential to facilitate dialogue", but the references you are suggesting would cancel out any of the advantages that I had in mind. So I stand partially corrected. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said I think many parties are at fault here. It does not alter the fact his opening salvo was needlessly confrontational and looks like baiting. I agree the correct response was not to post silly Trollometer pictures, but to point out how their argument was facile and really stunningly weak.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

And there wasn't a verbal response that could have accomplished all that and more? Damn, this language thing is overrated. Couldn't we go back to screeches and growls? Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that is what I just said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Sorry about that. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how impressive feats of sarcasm are doing anything to argue against my initial complaint that @John2o2o2o: has a long history of using talk pages as soapboxes and refusing to assume good faith when other editors challenge them. It's all rather befuddling that they haven't come to speak for themselves when another user with no prior involvement seems to have taken it upon themselves to become such a strident advocate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not such a strident advocate. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions over the long haul, while for the most part they did not advance matters, it's only in these last couple of days that they have moved beyond being mostly a distraction, and at that it's only because they posted in the middle of a discussion where people wanted to argue anyway. By my standards they show a lack of competence, but my standards are surely higher than what would be the norm here, and I'm inclined to let this blow over, because I don't think a long term block would go over well, and there seems to be no point to some short term action. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a long term block would go over well Could you expound upon that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A short term block may be appropriate. Honestly I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is just getting bizarre now. OK as his only defender has said short term block I will support it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also fine with a short term block. Basically all I ever wanted out of this was for the original user to be aware that his pattern of behaviour had been observed and found inappropriate. Whether mentorship, a short term block or some other action does that I'm less concerned with the details of the action than making sure they receive the message.Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Short block: 24-48 hours. With a good explanation for the block. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of opposed to a block at this point. The user hasn't edited in a day, and signs are they won't be back to that topic; a block wouldn't be preventing any disruption. Some kind of summary of everyone's thoughts in this thread (we all seem to agree their style of argument is disruptive and not really working towards improving the encyclopedia) posted on their talk page as a warning (and marker for when it happens again) ought to suffice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic material about ASCII art

A Word From The Artist:

A comment on my talk page asked me "please not discus a user in article talk space. Take it to their talk page please." [110][111] The more I think about it the more I am convinced that responding to obvious trolling -- even with a bit of (I hope) humorous ASCII Art -- was the wrong decision. Long experience by many people for many years has clearly shown that the best response to trolling is no response at all. (In the case of Wikipedia I would modify that advice a bit and advise reporting severe trolling -- which this wasn't -- at ANI). So I apologize and retract my Trollometer comment. Alas, human nature seems to move us to respond...

Or, to put the above in (I hope) humorous ASCII Art form:

    |                                            .--.
    |                              ______.-------|  |
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |    __..--``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
    |    __..--``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |                                    `-------|  |
    |                                            `--`

    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^` 

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I find your use of ASCII art not to be highly offensive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can explain to John2o2o2o, using ASCII art, that they must not pick fights on Talk pages and that their past behavior has been considered by many here to be inappropriate and that our fondest hope is that they become a productive editor and that the least desirable outcome is that they will be blocked if all else fails but that we are hoping that it doesn't come to that. If we can do that then we will have proven that ASCII art is a worthy alternative to plain old boring English. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to require that someone who refuses to listen suddenly start listening as the only outcome that will cause you to accept ASCII Art. I expect the following to be no more and no less effective than you writing "our fondest hope is that they become a productive editor and that the least desirable outcome is that they will be blocked if all else fails but that we are hoping that it doesn't come to that" was.

 [___] <--- Block.
 
 >:0   <--- Disruptive editor.
 
 [>:0] <--- Disruptive editor blocked.
  
 :-) :-) :-) :-)  <--- Other editors are happy.
 
 >:)   <--- Disruptive editor decides to stop being disruptive.
 
 :-) :-) >:) :-) :-)  <--- EVERYONE is happy.

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary

• Summary from Simonm223 (talk · contribs) My concern when I filed this ANI request is that I don't think John2o2o2o (talk · contribs) is here to contribute to building the encyclopedia so much as to pick fights on talk pages and then run away. That said, they've never broken Wikipedia policy so severely that a ban would be appropriate, and their history of fight-picking is so varied that a tban would be useless. Ultimately I'm mostly concerned that the user get the message that their behaviour has been noted and is considered inappropriate. I am not particularly concerned with the form that message takes so much as that they receive it. The truth is, if their pattern holds true, they probably will vanish from Wikipedia for a few weeks before popping up on another talk page somewhere to try and pick a fight there so I don't see them as being a substantial risk to ongoing discussions at InfoWars. But this is somebody who has participated on Wikipedia for quite some time, and encouraging them, somehow, to try and make their contributions more productive would be ideal. Honestly I most like the idea of them taking on a mentor; but their unwillingness to participate here on this talk, despite being notified on personal talk and pinged at lest once within this conversation makes me feel this is unlikely to occur. Won't be putting up much of a stink about any outcome; just hope there is one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

^This. Like, 100%. It reflects my feelings exactly. I'm perfectly willing to help them become a productive editor, but if that fails, or if the community doesn't cotton to that idea, then we should just indef them as being NOTHERE and be done with it. There's absolutely no upside to us just doing nothing and hoping this editor sees the error of their ways all on their own. None whatsoever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[ec] You might want to copy the following to your local disk:[112] I will be removing it in a few days. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically where I am as well. They may not contribute much, but most of the time their non-contributive posts are at most a mild nuisance. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply give them ample time to respond to this thread, and, should they fail to do so, block them until such time that they address the concerns. Communication is, after all, required, and this editor does not seem to avoid getting into discussions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Six years of being a "mild nuisance" without substantially improving the encyclopedia, is too much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I confess I haven't read the entirety of this enormous thread, but I agree with BMK. The pie chart does not look good: [113]. If they are generally not contributing to the encyclopedia, and they are creating more heat than light, unless they come to this noticeboard and make a good case for themselves and for their own rehabilitation, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• MPants at work—I see here that you remove the post of John2o2o2o with the edit summary "you don't get to !vote twice". I think that is heavy-handed. Just one suggestion among many possible suggestions: you could have only changed the word "Oppose" to "Comment". It rattles a person to be treated unfairly. This is not unlike the use of ASCII art to imply that someone is a troll. Uncoincidentally you and Guy Macon (author of the ASCII art) oppose the position taken by John2o2o2o in the RfC in question. As I said with my initial post in this section—there is enough blame to go around. I don't blame John2o2o2o for responding "I note that you have censored my last comment."[114] And I don't blame John2o2o2o for responding "Please stop harrassing me...I am not trying to vote twice."[115] There is a problem here of using a Talk page as a forum. The posts of John2o2o2o are sometimes problematic in that they engage in unnecessarily wide-ranging arguments, resulting in heated exchanges with opposing editors. But they are in turn subject to provocation from more seasoned editors. John2o2o2o has been editing for a lot of years but with relatively few edits. But harassing such an editor is highly unfair, in my opinion. This isn't a project for only a small crew of editors with intensive input. We should value the editor with limited time to become thoroughly familiar with how we operate. In a sense John2o2o2o is a newbie. We should be especially accommodating of those unfamiliar with the way this place operates. They may be a pain in the ass but their presence has the tendency of preventing us from becoming calcified and set in our ways. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your end goal here? To get me blocked for reverting a duplicate !vote? To get Guy blocked for daring to be humorous? To get a policy set that forbids the use of visual communication? To ensure that this editor remains free to jump into talk page discussions they clearly know nothing about, vent their opinion and then throw a fit when others disagree? Seriously; every possible outcome of you "winning" this argument is a negative. How have you managed to not figure that out by now? Come on, man. Every reasonably smart person has the right to engage in some stupidity from time to time, but you gotta learn when to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor who has been here six years is nowhere near a newbie. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Every reasonably smart person has the right to engage in some stupidity from time to time, but you gotta learn when to stop." Am I engaging in "stupidity"? Learn to treat people respectfully. I am not rattled by the implications associated with "stupidity". But others might be. I think you should try a little bit harder to treat people with respect. (And no, I am not trying to get you blocked, as you suggested.) In that same RfC, named Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? you took to task an editor named Israell over their user page. Was that germane to the RfC? Or is that an example of WP:SEALIONING? You ask me "What is your end goal here? I have to think about that. I don't know that I have an "end goal" but I would say to you that I think you could tone it down. OK, I've got an end goal. I had to think about it. It is to lower the temperature of the dialogue in contentious settings. And I think that is a worthy aim. Bear in mind the question in that RfC: Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? It is not an unusual sort of issue to be addressed on an article Talk page but I think it is a relatively unimportant question. The term "far right" is open to a wide range of interpretations and many sources from many perspectives can be expected to be seen having bearing on this question. It is understandable that editorial opinions would be all over the map. It is especially important to tone the rhetoric down when it is opinion that is being discussed. After taking the considerable amount of time it took to read that particular RfC I come to the conclusion that John2o2o2o engaged in the sort of arguments that should definitely be frowned upon in these sorts of discussions but that it is also problematic to provoke unfortunate responses only to try to paint them in an AN/I setting as entirely at fault. I don't think they are entirely at fault. You provoke responses from people when you say things like "fix your damn userpage: Wikipedia in not the place for you to promote yourself."[116] Surely you are not surprised when they respond "Fuck you! Who the Hell do you think you are?"[117] Does this really belong within the context of an RfC on Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Hansthewiki's disruptive editing by posting unreferenced edits

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

---

This user has been reverted by a couple of editors including me. The user has been asked by myself to provide a reference(s) in my edit summary and the editor's talk page, only to post in my talk page, to tell me that he doesn't care and that I should just let him. He also asked two other editors to stop reverting his unreferenced edits.[118] [119] These are the articles that the said editor has continue to disrupt: List of programs by GMA Network, Ika-5 Utos, Magasawa, Magkaribal, Hindi Ko Kayang Iwan Ka and My Special Tatay.Hotwiki (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• The user also asks others to "trust" him while he himself is violating an important policy. Hell no. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at his editing history, going back five years, I don't think he has ever used references (edit: Oh, once he used instagram as a reference). Like, not even bare urls. Most he's ever done is add a link to an official website in the external links section. There could be a language barrier issue since he's from the Philippines. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Hotwiki: your warnings to the user were not very civil, you come across as a bully, and people have a tendency not to hear advice when it's shoved down their throats by bullies. We have a series of templates for this, starting with {{uw-unsourced1}}. Use them from now on.

Ponyo has already warned the user properly, I will warn them one more time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't bullying him. I asked him to post references with his edits and what he did, is he told me through my talk page, that he wouldn't do it again and yet he did. If that's not trolling then I don't know what it is. What's so uncivil about my actions? Also I have done my research online and there's no official statement yet when those shows are ending or premiering. He's basically using his own assumptions. And forgive me, if I dont have the patience to chill to editors who are trolling and don't know how to listen. Hansthewiki got the reaction out of me.Hotwiki (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many people in this world that are as stubborn as a mule. Not surprised. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Hansthewiki's reactions are not ideal, but I can't help noticing that the warnings you gave, before you got the reply on your talk page, were rather terse and did not actually explain what was required. For a user who is not very good at English (actually, for many native English-speakers as well), a first warning consisting merely of "Learn to post references" is not particularly helpful. That's why the templates are useful, they include a whole lot of information for the user as well as a warning, and we often have to do a bit of extra explanation when dealing with non-native speakers. --bonadea contributions talk 13:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My reactions only sounded tense due to him not listening and not having the urge to actually back up his edits. His edits were unreferenced and they were reverted because of that, and that was mentioned in my edit summarises. And his disruptive edits didn't happen in a day, it was continuous to the point that I had to post in his talk page. Then his first reply was "I don't care" and posted his unreferenced / guess edits. Clearly that is someone who isn't respecting Wikipedia's policy in using references. I didn't attack him personally, I didn't even comment when he posted in my talk page because I didn't want to be negative. I wasn't bullying him. I also warned him more than once, hoping he would listen, so he wouldn't be reported to Ani right away, and he didn't listen and here we are. Hotwiki (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Reverts and copyright violations by Учхљёная

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

The user was blocked twice earlier this year for edit-warring and for disruptive editing. They were featured twice at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#User:Учхљёная, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Ongoing disruption by Учхљёная The problem with their editing is that they are interested in anthems and insist that the articles about anthems should include lyrics even if those are copyrighted. (There are also other problems with their editing, but this are not important for the time being). If others disagree, they start edit-warring. Today, I have noticed this edit on my watchlist, which restored the text of the anthem (it was essentially a revert to one of the earlier versions of the article). I blocked the user for two weeks and revision-deleted the edit. But then I noticed that the user performed today a large amount of similar edits (examples: [120], [121], [122], see the user contribution for the full list). Should we may be indef them and be done with it?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, they filed an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the lyrics are copyrighted: the matter has been discussed in several places, but a recent one one I remember is Talk:Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. I do not see how this discussion applies to the anthems of federal subjects of Russia, and I do not see how these could be in the public domain, but may be it is worthwhile discussing once.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I think that if there's anything wrong with this editor, it's their penchant for edit-warring and the habit of introducing obscure, unsourced, and seemingly possibly made up transliterations and transliteration schemes. – Uanfala (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uanfala, we don't have to be "sure" that outside content is copyrighted, we assume that by default; unless it can be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it is not under copyright, we don't host it in this project. I blanked Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic and listed it at WP:CP (several days ago) for exactly that reason – unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that the author of the lyrics, the composer of the music and the author of any translation have each separately released their rights in their work, we consider them to be protected by copyright. Only if we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that they did so can we consider whether to host that content (on which topic WP:NOTLYRICS is good reading). Regardless of what happens about the block of the combative Cyrillic-named editor, we're going to have to clean up a lot of articles. A WP:CCI may be the best mechanism for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with any of the pages concerned except Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. By "I'm not sure the lyrics are copyrighted" I meant "There's compelling evidence presented on the talk page that the lyrics are out of copyright, and there's no evidence to suggest they aren't". Regardless, agreeing to leave that to CCI. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Учхљёная. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Champion. I've blocked the reported account and one IP as obvious socks; the rest of the IPs reported there were already blocked. They were still editing from the IP address while their main account was blocked, so I've reblocked them indefinitely for the block evasion. I've also revoked their talk page access due to disruptive unblock requests, and I will scan pages they frequent for the necessity of semi-protection. Regards, Swarm ♠ 23:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, there's far too many pages to semi-protect. I think we should just protect on a case by case basis going forward and continue to document the IP socks at the SPI to see if rangeblocking would be feasible. Feel free to bring any issues directly to me as well. Swarm ♠ 23:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Bacardi2018 using user page as sandbox, against community consensus

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

---

Bacardi2018 has been using his user page as a sandbox. That's the primary problem. As he gets to a final state on a section or sometimes the whole page, he copies the content to the original article. This often overwrites changes made between his copy and the current state. More often than not, the additions are unsourced. The community discussed this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bacardi2018. The article was deleted and Bacardi2018 did not participate. In fact, the editor does not bother to use edit summaries or respond to talk page notices and questions. I am assuming an editor who is not comfortable writing in English. At any rate, after the page was deleted, Bacardi2018 started back. The editor has restored partial content from 2018–19 UEFA Europa League a total of three times since the deletion. The first time I reverted. The second time I reverted and warned. I am reporting the behaviour on the third time in less than three hours.

Not sure if this is a problem or not, but I'd rather not have to go through another MfD discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that they can create User:Bacardi2018/sandbox 2, User:Bacardi2018/sandbox 3 and so on if they think one sandbox is not enough Hhkohh (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there is any rule against using your main user page as a sandbox if you want to do so. The issue in this case, and the reason why the MFD last time, is that the user did not attribute the text when copying it, per WP:COPYWITHIN. This can usually be rectified with a simple comment in a dummy edit, though it would be helpful if Bacardi2018 would acknowledge that they have understood this. Either way, both Bacardi2018 and Walter Görlitz were edit warring over the page, even if neither reached the 3RR limit, for which I award them both a hearty WP:TROUT.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. The issue isn't using a sandbox at all, it's what it's being used for: a staging area for unsourced changes that will go on to overwrite other content later, but I do love trout. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Hundreds upon hundreds of editors regularly use their user pages this way. If there are substantive problems with the subject's editing, those should be detailed. Otherwise this is timewasting windmill-tilting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are substantive problems with the subject's editing detailed on the MfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Since when have MfD's been the appropriate place to discuss "substantive problems with the subject's editing"? 31.49.219.1 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be wise for an uninvolved admin to take a look at what has been going on on Bacardi2018's talk page. It seems to have become a dumping-ground for improper accusations of 'vandalism', and of deletion templates etc that entirely fail to explain what is going on. Faced with that sort of welcome, I'm not surprised that Bacardi2018 is uncommunicative. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Just fast reverts. I have not accused the editor of vandalism. The editor had a welcome much earlier than the MfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was you that made the accusation. The fact of the matter however is that immediately after the usual Teahouse invitation, there are a series of posts which make exactly that claim. None of which seem to refer to any edits made by Bacardi2018 which fit the definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Putting myself in Bacardi2018's shoes, I think I'd have difficulty not coming to the conclusion that disputes over Wikipedia content were conducted through false accusations, invocation of unexplained jargon, and random deletions, rather than through dialogue. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

But the previous warnings are not the issue, using his talk page as a staging ground for unconstructive edits is.

As for through dialogue, the editor has not responded to any comment on their talk page. We cannot force the editor to dialogue with us. Feel free to attempt to explain the situation to the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You may think that the hostile behaviour exhibited on Bacardi2018's talk page isn't an issue. I do. And again, I would ask that an uninvolved admin take a look. It is probably too late to avoid this particular contributor forming a thoroughly negative opinion of the way Wikipedia newcomers are 'greeted', but maybe a lesson or two might be learned for next time. Assuming that Wikipedia still wants newcomers, and that it doesn't now demand that they sit a five-hour exam in Wikijargon first... 31.49.219.1 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop with this devil's advocate nonsense. The editor clearly has seen their talk page, because they have spammed shit on it and deleted things from it. If an editor doesn't see all these warnings and at least make an ATTEMPT at communication, they do not have the competency to edit Wikipedia. To suggest that this is a newcomer being bullied by the system is disingenuous. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson in hostility. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE, trolling and uncivil behaviour by u:Chetsford

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

This user has been more than once ([123] [124] even [125]) asked me to take his conduct to ANI; after this extremely POINTY AfD nomination [126], I have finally decided to humour him. The nomination came immediately after I used the publication the article is about as an example (with Wikilink) [127] in another AfD discussion. At this point his behaviour in and initiating of RPG AfDs is actually damaging the project and sucking in the energy of other editors besides myself. Given the context that follows, there is no way for me to WP:AGF that the latest AfD was somehow a coincidence; rather it was clearly an attempt to provoke a reaction. Rather than doing what I have attempted before ([128] [129] [130]) and try to compromise or encourage more norm-governed AfD behaviour from Chetsford, I am finally taking this to the venue where it probably should have gone the moment I recognized the civil trolling that he was doing. If nothing else, this exchange ([131] [132]) should have told me that Denmark was rotting. Also note Chetsford's extremely unconstructive contribution here [133] which shows that his WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and stubborn and UNCIVIL perseverance even after the RSN told him that he was substantively wrong all along, are not limited to his dealings with me, though I haven't seen them appear outside of the RPG domain. So a topic ban for Chet from RPGs (or from AfDs, where he shows CIR issues with BEFORE in general) would be most likely to nip this problem more or less in the bud.

I understand BOOMERANG perfectly well, and fully accept that my interventions in these discussions were not always according to the best traditions of Wikipedia: as I admitted in one of these AfDs [134], I have a weakness for being trolled, and I allowed myself to react intemperately. I named the CIR issues too early [135] and possibly too broadly ([136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]) or too enthusiastically [142], though Chetsford refused to respond constructively to my efforts ([143] [144]) to de-escalate and remedy when I overstepped, preferring to NOTHEARTHAT and proffer only ANI as a solution. So here we are.

Nominations such as these [145], [146] (indicating WP:WIKISTALKING, since he had clearly found [147]), and previously Myth & Magic (role-playing game) appear from the present vantage point to have been simply highly effective efforts at GAMING and trolling. Note especially this gem [148] and this one [149] - whereas later he averted [150] a familiarity with hobby games - indicating that his previous characterization of RPGs as "puzzle games" [151], "tightly paraphrased puzzle books" [152] and "games exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [153] must have been deliberate provocation. This is extremely UNCIVIL behaviour, and he continues to throw about inaccurate allegations of FANZINES, FANCRUFT and WALLEDGARDENS even after he has been given better information - perhaps the trolliest of the nominations, [154], which he closed perhaps after realizing he had gone to far for the moment, was characterized by his continuing labelling of independent, professionally-staffed magazines as "fanzines" even after he had repeatedly been told better. He has consistently mocked sources [155] [156] and belittled awards [157] [158] [159] even when he clearly knows better than to make those misleading or false statements just to irritate people who actually give two shots about the subject area he is, for his own amusement, sending to AfD. He pretends to believe that RPG publications are not actually books or works of creative art but rather "commercial products ... equivalent to ... concrete" [160] - while it is perfectly acceptable for him to believe this FRINGE position in his heart, and even to express it at AfD, it is entirely UNCIVIL for him to create an AfD just to take a swipe at an editor he is disagree with, and particularly to express his opinion in extravagant language designed only to tick off the editors who customarily participate in RPG AfDs and who are knowledgeable about, and care about, the subject matter. Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion: the intent is clearly not to encourage civil discussion of the issues.

There is nothing wrong with putting an article to AfD, even a sourced article like Hillfolk. There is something wrong with doing so immediately after, and because, another editor uses it as a source when explaining a concept in another AfD - Chetsford was simply being POINTY - in the context of 15 other gaming AfDs he launched over a couple of days, including AfDs of sourced articles about award-winning games, game designers and game publishers, in which the nominations themselves were full of trolling [161] and the nominator's arguments about sources [162] were deliberately inflammatory and knowingly misleading or inaccurate.

Tyw7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hobit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HighKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BOZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Webwarlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pavlor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please try to use 50 words or less to summarize: Why does this belong at ANI? What is the issue? What outcome are you seeking? I seriously doubt anyone is going to pick through all of the above to figure out the essentials. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford is making inappropriate nominations and UNCIVIL arguments at ANI (mostly about Tabletop role-playing games) as part of a WP:GAME/ trolling project and wasting editors' time and energy; he should be topic-banned from either Games and game publishing or from AfDs, to stop the chaos that ensues. Illustrated by diffs, above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To the specific accusations:

1. Wikistalking: I reject the charge of Wikistalking by reference to the editor interaction analyzer: [163]. As can be seen, Newimpartial and I have co-edited 23 AfDs and mainspace articles. In 22 of those overlaps Newimpartial arrived at the article/AfD only after I did, and usually within minutes. The one point of interaction in which I was the second editor had an initial edit gap of seven months.
2. Civil: I reject by assertion that comparing the game "Cthulu Britannica" to the game "Stratego" is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
3. Trolling I reject by assertion Newimpartial's definition of what constitutes trolling. For example, here he/she informed me it was his/her obligation to "ridicule people" [164]. When I responded by saying "I respectfully disagree. Thanks." he/she seemed to interpret my response as an attempt to troll him/her [165].

The origin of this complaint is twofold:

• Newimpartial believes I am a "clueless editor" vis a vis the AfD process. As proof of this I would cite the fact that he/she pasted the bold phrase "Improper Nomination by Clueless Editor" to the top of six separate AfDs I'd opened [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], prompting three uninvolved editors to warn him/her about personal attacks. I reject the implication that I am clueless/incompetent vis a vis the AfD process by noting I have a 94% [172] match rate at AfD while Newimpartial has a 66% match rate [173].
• Newimpartial seems to have an opinion that no one should participate in AfDs regarding role-play game articles who do not play role-play games and that, in some cases, the rules of fantasy role-play games themselves should guide AFD discussions. Here [174] Newimpartial accused FourViolas of "spreading disinformation", told her she needed to examine the last 10 years of RPG history before voting on AfDS and then declared "you might as well stop contributing now". Here [175] Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

In regard to the proposal that I be topic banned from AfD:

I would note that another editor was recently topic banned from AfD for having a match rate roughly equivalent to the match rate Newimpartial has at AfD (see: [176]). I would also remind, as per above, I have a 94% match rate at AfD. Ergo, while there is precedent for a topic ban due to a chronically high AfD mismatch rate, the proposal in its current form will need a minor tweak.

While I believe a close examination of all the diffs Newimpartial provided, as well as the project page for each diff, will reveal that I have maintained a perfectly calm and polite demeanor in the face of increasingly relentelss declarations of my incompetence, and so forth, I am open to the community's input and will immediately rectify any transgressions I have failed to self-identify and issue apologies where needed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Before the boomerang hits, I wanted to reply succinctly to each of the above refutations:

1. My evidence for wikistalking is the Monica Valemtinelli second AfD. If this did not arise from stalking, how did you happen to chose that article to nominate?

2. On civility, I presented about a dozen examples of your choices to denigrate the sources or the topics of the articles you presented at AfD. You responded to one, with a good assertion. Can you maintain in good conscience that all of those mischaracterizations and insulting constructions were CIVIL?

3. When I give many examples of you deliberately posting provocative statements in order to provoke a reaction (trolling) you reply by providing an example where you made a typical SEALION "civil" response. How does that respond to my initial claim, besides "I know you are, but what am I?"

In response to my underlying assertion, that you have not conducted an adequate BEFORE in any of your RPG AfDs, and that you constantly - from ignorance or intentionally - make non-policy-compliant argument arguments about sources in that domain, you reply that you have a good match rate at AfD and mind is bad. Mine is bad, because I used to defend marginal cases from deletion in principle. But how is this germane to the competence of your BEFORE work for nominations? Isn't this just another WP:SEALION move of the goal posts? Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh example, Chetsford. Let's talk about this one:

Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

This "(unless I misunderstand)" is priceless, and is the key to the whole utterance, since it gives you an out. My previous statements on the subject were that "the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question" and that "In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again."

Whatever the validity or not of my comparison, it is very c!early not "citing rules from a fantasy game...to justify my !vote rationale", which is clearly an attempt to insinuate that I can't distinguish between fantasy games and reality while giving himself an out "unless I misunderstand".

This is exactly the kind of civil POV trolling that Chetsford has been engaged in through his recent AfD interventions, and the time of his response here - everything if days and everything it leaves out - encapsulates perfectly. I also can't imagine a scenario in which an appropriate or CIVIL response to the comparison I made would be to nominate the article for the game concerned for deletion, which was, of course, his response. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

People use AfDs to discuss the rationale by which an article should be deleted, ergo, I reasonably assume that arguments advanced there are to that end. If you were just describing the rules and game-play of "Hillfolk game" for general community interest, then I regret I misunderstood your intent. However, I'd also suggest you might move general interest gaming discussions to a different forum than AfD to avoid misunderstandings as to their purpose in the future. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear even from the excerpt I just quoted, I was explaining a dynamic of AfD discussions to illustrate why I prefer to identify sources by name without giving links whenever asked, as you well know from the original exchange. But the significant fact is still that your response to that exchange was to send the article about the award-winning game mentioned to AfD (while mocking the award), and later to mischaracterize my post as citing game rules as an AfD argument "unless I misunderstand". Very sly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The repeated pasting of the 'clueless editor' comment in AfDs is inclining me towards believing that the civility issue may be Newimpartial's. I was concerned when I read "Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion:" which indicated to me a total loss of proportionality. I would like to see if Newimpartial restates their complaint in more concise terms but from the diffs of theirs I have looked at I am inclined to consider proposing a topic ban on games of some type – maybe game AfDs? – since they seem unable to maintain perspective and participate in a collegial and civil manner. Jbh ^Talk 00:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note my relatively succinct summary in bold above. I do recognize that the "clueless editor" posting was overdone, and offered to strike it through (diff provided above), but Chetsford did not take me up on the offer; I also attempted to remove the whole initial pisode of bickering with Chetsford from AfD on the basis of NORFORUM, but he declined (diff also provided above). If you look at all my previous AfD contributions you will find some rough edges and stubbornness (especially from my early days defending drafts, a bad habit I abandoned long ago). What you won't find is me posting tit-for-tat AfD nominations, lying or trolling about the nature of sources, moving goalposts and using the whole apparatus of civil trolling as part of a game. I hope you can see that.

I have also found sources and policy arguments that have influenced a large number of RPG AfDs; how would my removal from this area benefit the project, I wonder? By contrast, can see a clear advantage in Chetsford's removal... Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, just to be clear, do you really think it is CIVIL to send an article to AfD because another editor references it in another AfD to explain a concept? This perplexes me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think the problem here is with Chetsford. I think that Newimpartial is deserving of a swift, sure boomerang, in the form of a topic ban to all AFD topics and a warning about civility.--Jorm (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diffs, and my exchange with Chetsford here, in making that determination? Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I had a peek at some of the AfDs that are at the core of this heated conflict and I will note that Chetsford does seem to have adopted a rather scatter-shot approach to their deletion propositions. While some minor RPGs from France in the '80s may not meet general notability criteria, Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house at the moment, and several other games related pages hit in this blitz are also significant. I'd suggest that Chetsford might benefit from taking on mentorship from somebody with a bit of knowledge of the landscape of the industry before going on to mass-nominate more tabletop gaming related pages. I am honestly assuming good faith - although my own incusionist sympathies are pretty evident, I certainly can see the deletionist point of view sometimes. I think in this instance though, Chetsford lacks the industry knowledge to successfully differentiate between non-notable, marginally notable and hugely-significant-within-the-industry articles. All this is notwithstanding the interaction between the two editors of course. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-admin response You say that Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house but that's exactly the issue being discussed at its AfD. I originally !voted Delete and only recently changed to Keep, but that was after a couple of hours of research and even then, there is only one clear reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination. I would say that it is still a No Consensus close verging towards Keep - certainly not an obvious Keep. And please, throwing tags like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" around just destroys any cooperative editting environment and creates an "Us and Them" approach. Finally, you shouldn't need "industry knowledge" to find two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, which is the minimum required. Yet, at that AfD and despite the participation of editors with so-called "industry expertise", it has been a struggle. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just on the substantive question here: I don't have an opinion on the appropriateness of Chetsford's Cubicle 7 nominations (except that he doesn't know what a WALLEDGARDEN is, and he cited it as grounds for deletion in each case.

What I am saying is that his Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk nominations were personally motivated and inappropriate, and that the former must have taken him considerable research to find. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

First: Please property indent your posts! There should be a one ':' equivalent visual indentation for your responses. Failing to properly indent makes following the thread extremely difficult and nearly impossible for people using screen readers.

Second: A common characteristic of your complaints here is that you seem to be taking normal interactions as personal affronts. For instance, just above, you make an accusation of WP:WIKISTALKING yet it is common practice to check another editor's edits if one notices something possibly problematic or even just from curiosity. Beyond that, by making unsupported claims of "being personally motivated", WIKISTALKING etc you are making personal attacks. This is behavior which will likely get you blocked if you do not stop. If I were you I would consider this a warning not to continue to make such attacks. I can not block you but TonyBallioni has also said "The personal attacks on other editors need to stop." and he can.

We have a policy of assuming good faith because we are all assumed to be here to build an encyclopedia and every action taken by any editor should be assumes to be made with the intention of furthering that goal. Repeated accusations to the contrary without solid evidence to back them up (and bare accusations are not evidence) are corrosive to the editing environment. I strongly suggest that you consider that what you are calling civil trolling is more a failure of AGF. For instance consider that comparing the size of a concrete convention and a gaming convention is nothing more nor less than an analogy. Maybe you don't like the analogy but it is not a troll, not by reasonable reading and certainly not with assumption of good faith. Such failures of AGF are why I think you need a break from the contentious environment of AfD. The personal attacks that follow from your failure to AGF though are much worse and must be reined in everywhere else we will end up back here in short order discussing a block rather than a ban. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Newimpartial

I propose a six month topic ban on deletion discussion relating to games/gaming broadly construed in the hope that editing in areas where they are less emotionally involved will lend some much needed perspective.What I am seeing illustrated here is a complete inability to maintain perspective re AfD's of games. The repeated postings accusing calling another editor a "clueless editor"; the comparison of a comment on a game to the holocaust; the accusation of trolling just above (looked to me like they were using game dynamics to support their position too); and what appears to me to be negative behavior resulting from, as they say themseves, " meet[ing] all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled"[177]. They are also correct in that "the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation"[178] and neither does Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support all AfD per above. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: per TonyBallioni and my comment below his !vote. 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain as an involved party. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Jbhuntley, I will certainly respect the topic ban if that is the close, but I absoutely did not "compare a game to the holocaust", I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison, as forms of trolling...

If I am topic~banned, though, it will just be another example where those being trolled are punished while the trolls are free to troll on, which seems to be a pattern at WP as long as the troll appears "civil". Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply per this. You are begging the question. First one must accept that what you say is trolling is in fact trolling. From what I have seen it is not. I have seen you accuse editors who disagree with you of trolling. I have seen you attack other editors who disagree with you. Also, "I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison" is so inappropriate and over the top yet you defend it. That shows me you have a serious perspective issue.

I strongly urge you to reconsider how you interact and edit here – the message you should be getting is that your is by far the greater issue and you need to learn to separate trolling etc from disagreement. Jbh ^Talk 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 03:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever I am or am not doing, I am not begging the question. I believe that any unbiased person, who reviews the diffs I presented in their appropriate context, will see the pattern of civil trolling by Chetsford that culminated in Hillfolk AfD, about which I have said nothing unCIVIL outside this forum (or, I hope, in it).

And I admit that I may be wrong in that judgement, but I went to some effort to actually explain my reasoning above, and I do not assume that anyone who disagrees is trolling, or any other unflattering characterization. I just don't agree. I have observed ANI enough to know that it usually punishes the person who "snaps" and rewards the person who needles the other person until they snap, but evidently not enough to lose my blind optimism that ANI can be swayed by a well-reasoned argument in which the presenter is open about the flaws in their own behaviour and position while presenting evidence of their claims. Oh, well.

If you look at my interactions with editors on and off AfD you will not find me experiencing "Trolling" except from Chetsford, at least not for years. I am fully able to disagree with people on the basis of good faith, and have done so over and over again, including on difficult issues that matter a great deal more than games.

I recognize in retrospect that the game:concrete to abortion:holocaust analogy was inappropriate, but more because it is less acceptable to care about creative works than abortion than anything else. I was trying to come up with an example of deliberate button-pushing that everyone here would understand, because that exemplifies what Chetsford has been doing this week and what, really, I think is one of the key challenges right now in WP discourse - not about games, but about deliberate button-pushing while remaining civil in order to GAME the system and produce drama, in some combination. So yeah, I came up with a distracting and ineffective example. And you don't have to believe me about that either, and I won't me upset if you don't, but that's what I've seen over the last year, coming to ANI and elsewhere on WP, and it saddens me.

I'm not trying to "defend myself" from charges of incivility. I know that I crossed the line, and so also know that my efforts to fix it didn't work. But it will be sad for me if the issue WP choses to address is my using the word "incompetent" where I shouldn't, and not the behavioural issues I have documented above. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per proposer.--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from all AfDs per Newimpartials statement above, which I take to mean he's likely to repeat the issues in other AfDs. The personal attacks on other editors need to stop. Pinging @Jorm and Jbhunley:. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  See, I was thinking about suggesting all AFDs as well, and thought maybe I was being too aggressive. So I support this as well.--Jorm (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would support all AfD on the principal that the problems illustrated are likely to be both wider and deeper but the evidence shown is limited in scope to game/gaming AfDs so I limited my proposal to that. Also, if there is any indication that the problems extend beyond AfD I would support broadening the ban to those areas as well. Jbh ^Talk 01:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Since this has been raised at my talk, I'll expand my reasoning further: AfD is a high stress area. Viewing someone who you happen to be in disagreement with as a troll and yourself as being trolled because of actions at AfD isn't really compatible to being able to work in the area well. This suggests to me that the issues with the gaming AfDs would expand beyond it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  There's also a lot of calling other people "sealions" when they are the ones doing the sealioning (c.f., my talk).--Jorm (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a sealion on your Talk, nor have I demanded additional evidence, misrepresented policy or sources, moved goal posts, or cherry picked examples. I'm not clear what part of sealioning I might have done, then. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On another note, the vandalism of this section is certainly not something I would ever do. I hope somebody will look into it. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As you will see if you look, my mainspace edits for the last year or more have been largely confined to anti-edit warring and anti-vandalism. You can find my other recent non-AfD contributions at the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Benjamin

Searching my userid at most of these locations should turn up almost all of my recent non-AfD comments, since I don't think many have been archived. I don't think you will find anything UNCIVIL, although there was an exhausting conversation at the recent Trans woman RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD, and encourage the editor to contribute to Wikia or game fansites instead. Their determined attacks on an editor trying to clean up gamer fan content are not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Trying to clean up gamer fan content" is not an accurate assessment of Chetsford's AdDs. He has mocked sources that have been repeatedly upheld at RSN, cast aspersions on awards that are at the summit of their creative field and have been invoked routinely at AfD for over a decade, and made the "unique" argument that books aw no longer subject to NBOOK when they are also game products.

On the other hand, when actual non-notable or unsourced game material comes to AfD, I vote to !merge or !draftify, and actual FANCRUFT receives no sympathy (or !votes) from me at all. I am not part of the "problem" and Chetsford is certainly not the solution. Newimpartial (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I disagree completely. You have shown a lot of bad faith toward Chetsford in this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you would value a current, real time comparative sense of my civility and good faith at AfD in contrast to Chetsford, please look at the Hillfolk AfD [179].

Or the AfD of Monica Valentinelli [180]. Either or both might be enlightening about both myself and Chetsford. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They do illustrate your lack of good faith and tendency for namecalling, so thank you for giving us such clear examples. MPJ-DK  21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting perception, but I've just reviewed them again and don't see any namecalling, any lapses in AGF or even any snark on my part. Hmmmmm. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I will just pull two quick quotes - clueless editor and I will also AGF and assume some kind of intellectual dyslexia - making derogatory comments about someone's intelligence is hardly "good faith" despite you saying that it is. Just because you say it's not namecalling doesn't mean that it's not.  MPJ-DK  21:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, again, but so did not use the phrase "clueless editor" or any equivalent in either of those recent AfDs. The phrase "intellectual dyslexia" was my attempt to give a name to the kind of "brain fart" that would be the AGF explanation for Chetsford mis-stating "industry insider at Gencon" (the major convention) and "Guest of honor at Ropecon" [181] with "Industry insider at Ropecon", period.[182] Do you have an alternative explanation in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So at this point I suspect you are trolling me, just because you did a strike through of that comment in the first of those AFDs doesn't mean that you didn't use it - denial is really ridiculous considering it's right there on the page.  MPJ-DK  00:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you also were not warned about that comment either??  MPJ-DK  00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know what you are talking about, User:MPJ-DK. I *did* make the "clueless editor" comment in several of the *earlier* AfDs, was called on it, apologized, and subsequently struck those through, all prior to this ANI filing. In my initial ANI filing above I acknowledged those "clueless editor" edits specifically - with diffs - as inappropriate, intemperate, and grounds for a possible BOOMERANG [183]. I am certainly not denying them.

But I did not make any such comments on the Monica Valentinelli or Hillfolk AfDs, the two most recent, which is what I clearly stated here [184] and here [185] . Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from games-related XfDs. I think Newimpartial's compulsion to be as unfair and condescending as possible towards Chetsford has gotten very disruptive. Most of what Newimpartial is saying about Chetsford is misrepresentations and nonsense, and nobody should be subjected to it just for cleaning up crufty and unsourced back areas of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How is such mockery as labelling established reliable sources "Fanzines" and references to publishers as "Novelty T-shirt companies" and RPGs as "puzzle games" requisite to "clean up crufty areas"? I have provided many more RS in those discussions than Chetsford seems able to find, and when no sources are to be found I vote merge. I'm not arguing against a ban for myself, but anyone actually reading Chetsford's diffs, and especially the Hillfolk nom, has to see the POINT and the GAME. Editors seen inclined to rush to defend the AfD nom in this case rather than looking at the actual work. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Tarage (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there may be some backstory beyond the discussion in AFD discussions in the past week that I'm not aware of. Overall, there's clearly an issue here; the overall discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust (roleplaying game) is problematic, and comments like [186] are not at all necessary. That said, this seems a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument and I'm hesitant to impose indefinite bans at AFD based on a short-term issue; I'd rather limit Newimpartial to a single comment on AfDs than ban him from that area entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree I disagree with a topic ban as I think that is the wrong approach here. Newimpartial is trying to improve an area of the Wiki from what they perceive as people who do not know the area they're proposing AfD's in (and describing RPGs as "puzzle books" does certainly seem to indicate they may have a bit of a point there.) However just because someone doesn't know an area doesn't mean they can't edit/maintain/propose for AfD. I see that there may be a bit of a civility issue here and potential personal attacks here, but I believe a topic ban is the wrong approach. If we wish to admonish Newimpartial for their behaviour then fair enough, but a topic ban from this area would suggest they're disrupting the area which I'm not seeing. This is a civility/PA issue, not an area disruption issue. I just think that this is the wrong way of dealing with this. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree For largely the same reasons as the comment immediately above, as the AfD has proceeded, Newimpartial has been rushing around finding reliable sources to support notability for a lot of these articles. And Chetsford doesn't seem to have a strong grasp on the topic, the players or the sources that are reliable within the community; what I see here is a breakdown in civility and assumption of good faith. I don't think Chetsford was trolling. Nor do I think Newimpartial's comportment on the AfDs WRT Chetsford was appropriate. However I also do think Newimpartial's participation in the AfDs was, notwithstanding the incivility, constructive for the goals of the encyclopedia. If this were a physical room I'd sit them down together and tell them to both hash out their differences like grownups. As this is instead an online noticeboard, I'd suggest giving them both a warning and perhaps giving Chetsford a short-term tban on RPGs and Newimpartial an equivalent length iban from interacting with Chetsford. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Newimpartial can continue to provide sources and attempt to beef up articles brought to AFD without participating in AFD. There's nothing about a topic ban that prevents that. Additionally, keeping toxic people in situations "because they do good work" is a terrible idea, and one that ultimately harms the encyclopedia, so I don't think that argument holds water.--Jorm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I mean I understand where you're coming from but I think this is to a certain extent a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books", has said that RPG developers can't be considered creative professionals and argued that a major RPG event construed no more notability than a convention for concrete manufacturers. As somebody peripherally connected to the community (I'm a fantasy author and know a lot of game designers via our shared links) I can easily imagine a lot of people taking very specific offense to such insensitive and misguided statements. But they read more civilly than Newimpartial's angry and personal responses. Which is why I think the best course of action is to separate them. Let Newimpartial continue contributing to RPG stuff and keep them away from Chetsford. Let Chetsford continue doing what they want on Wikipedia but keep them away from an area where their personal biases are preventing them from contributing constructively. Basically I think it takes two to tango and I think both of the parties to this dispute need to have a good long think about their behaviour here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books" As stated above, I respectfully reject by assertion that my describing a manual of instructions on how to play a game as an "instruction book" constitutes a personal attack on another editor. First, there is nothing inherently offensive about being an instruction book. Secondly, instruction books are inanimate objects and cannot - by definition - be subject to a personal attack. Chetsford (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  By definition I'm INVOLVED, but I'll point out anyway that there is more to WP:CIVIL than just WP:NPA. Newimpartial (talk)

  Also, User:Jorm, if you look at the ongoing Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs - or the *vast* majority of my WP contributions, you won't find anything toxic. This is not the only time I have been triggered, but it is a fairly rare occurrence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  The fact that you believe RPG books to merely be “instructions for playing a game” and nothing else is why I question whether you should be involved in AfDs related to RPGs. And you are mischaracterizing who you assertions would offend. OTOH, the game designers who you said don’t constitute creative professionals would likely take offence at your comments.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I've been playing RPGs weekly or more often since the year 1980 (38 years) and have written several. And the rulebooks are, literally, "instructions for playing a game." So I'm confused as to why you are saying they aren't, or why you think that's important? Or maybe I don't know what they are? I must be another clueless editor.--Jorm (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  They also contain art, narrative, setting design, sometimes even discussion of performance theory. And Chetsford's reductive argument is to effectively preclude any RPG from notability. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, some RPG books are purely instruction manuals, but to be honest they're in the minority. Most contain setting information, narrative fiction, art, cartography and many other things well beyond what a game instruction manual would have. In fact many RPG books don't contain a single instruction, simply being the fictional equivalent of a guidebook or history text. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Okay. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am literally staring at my collection of RPG books - roughly five hundred volumes, maybe more - and I'm having difficulty finding one that consists only of narrative fiction, art, cartography, etc. and not rules or instructions in some way. In fact, I think the only thing I have that approaches this is Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Krynn. So this argument, too, does not hold water, and continuing to push it insults peoples' intelligence. Either way, this argument sounds like a content dispute, and certainly not worthy of the invective about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think we just slightly misunderstood each other. I said that ones that are purely instruction manuals are in the minority. Excluding D&D (where a huge percentage of everything written can be regarded as rules and stats etc) for most RPGs the majority of what is written and contained in books is not rules or instruction based but just generally informational and setting material. I'm not saying the majority of books have no rules/instructions, but the majority of RPG books are not purely rules/instructions. See the massive number of adventure books, campaigns, setting guides, city books, faction overviews, background tomes etc. Yes most of them contain some aspect of stats (not necessarily rules) but those are minimal in such works. See most supplements for Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings etc. Some books specifically contain no rules, stats or instructions such as the Freeport series, countless supplements for Harn, City of Clocks, multiple third party world books for Traveller, Elminster's Forgotten Realms (to use a rare D&D example), Fly Buffalo's City series among others just going through the books I have to hand.

  Anyway we're really straying, this topic isn't actually about RPG notability but about editor behaviour. I believe there is a civility/PA issue with NewImpartial and believe a topic ban isn't the correct way to address it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• The matter of consequence, User:Jorm, is that Chetsford translates his belief that role-playing books are like instruction manuals and that games themselves are non-artistic commodities, like bulk cement, into the assertion that WP:NBOOK does not apply to RPG books and WP:CREATIVE does not apply to game designers. Therefore this perspective, rather than being harmlessly eccentric, has serious implications at AfD, and he doubled down on it in an interesting way just a few minutes ago.[187]Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Jorm, I won't speak for anyone else, but the example of an instruction-less game book that comes to mind for me would be last year's two-volume Guide to Glorantha. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would certainly argue that NBOOK does not apply to rule books and yes I am familiar with the topic. RPG's etc are generally products which rate an article if and only if they independently pass GNG and have so much coverage that they can not be addressed in the publisher's article. So I see nothing unreasonable in another editor taking that position and do see an editor who describes such a position as 'mocking', 'belittling' or 'trolling' as being unable to participate in the collaborative/adversarial environment which characterizes AfD. Mind, that is not the only reason.

Who is correct with respect to NBOOK is out of scope here and best addressed at AfD. It is your apparent inability to see such a position as legitimate and choose to see it as 'civil trolling', or whatever, it the point at issue here. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbh, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my position. I do not regard the discussion of whether NBOOK applies to game books, or whether CREATIVE applies to game designers, to be beyond civil discourse. In fact I welcome and have called for [188] such a civil discussion. What I regard as civil trolling is deliberately and repeatedly mis-stating RPGs as "puzzle games" or "board games", and repeatedly comparing RPGs to such non-artistic commodities as concrete as if their non-artistic status were self-evident and beyond discussion. This is not the position you, Jbh, have outlined, but it is a position Chetsford established in his AfDs prior to my participation and on which he has doubled down, e.g., by ignoring or mocking information he has been given about sources and the topics of the articles under discussion. It is that approach that I am terming "belittling" and "trolling", not Chetsford's substantive position. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In future denunciations of me, could I kindly request you provide diffs appended to each specific accusation (e.g. "mocking information", etc.) and use exact quotes instead of paraphrasing? I think that can sometimes be helpful. Vis a vis your concern regarding comparisons I've made between role-play games and other commercial products; to recap, you had ordered another editor (FourViolas) to "stop contributing now" [189] to any RPG AFD because she didn't know about the "Keep" criteria in the "RPG domain" of WP to which I replied "There is no "RPG domain". WP standards are WP standards. There are no special criteria for games; they have to meet the same evidentiary requirements as any commercial product - a car, a refrigerator brand, breakfast cereal, anything.. [190] I apologize if you found that personally offensive, it was not my intent; however, I do stand by my statement as that is my reading of our policies. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I provided a rather full set of diffs relating to specific aspects of your behaviour in my initial filing [191]. However, if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige.

Perhaps we could start out discussion with the treatment of this diff you just posted [} [192], in which you isolate the phrase "stop contributing now". Interestingly, what I actually said was, "Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain, you might as well stop contributing now and save all of is a lot of wasted energy" - that was undoubtedly intemperate and counterproductive on my part, and I regret the formulation, but it is also quite a different utterance from your selective quotation. I should probably have invited a rational argument why the Origins awards could possibly *not* contribute to the notability of games, but certainly no such argument has been made this year at AfD. I also regard your outsourced assertions that games are *not* cultural products to be uncivil when they involve hyperbole or mis-statements of fact, as here [193], here [194] and here [195].

I also observe that you have not responded to the clarification I made here [196], about the inconsistencies and limitations of your prior "defense" [197]. It might contribute forward momentum to this discussion were you to do so. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige The way you did it above just now is perfect. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - behavior in this thread, denia of comments he clearly made, makes me question how construtive his contributions can be when someone disagrees with him. Ridicule and namecalling is not how we deal with editors that frustrate us.  MPJ-DK  00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could look at my reply above and consider striking through the "denial" comment, MPJ, since it appears to be based on a misunderstanding. I'd also point out that the two most recent AfDs, as well as the many Talk Page and RfC discussions I linked above, can be used to judge "how constructive my contributions can be when someone disagreed with me" - as can this ANI for that matter. It's not that evidence is lacking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose At this time. Having participated in a number of AfDs with Newimpartial recently and even having warned Newimpartial at one point that his behaviour was disruptive, it is clear to me that Newimpartial has a passion for this subject area and *merely* needs to learn to present their arguments in a factual manner with regards to policies and guidelines and to refrain from commenting on individuals no matter how witty it sounds in their own head. I believe Newimpartial realises now that they've screwed up and their behaviour was unacceptable, but a Topic Ban of AfDs??? That's a little over the top and a knee-jerk reaction. Topic Bans aren't intended as a punishment. If he doesn't learn from this and continues with disruptive behaviour, then sure, but lets see if he has learned anything first before taking a more drastic step. (I also hope Newimpartial takes some time to grasp indentation and formatting!) HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this proposal. If I could offer some analysis though; last night, after informing us in this ANI that he/she was aware he/she needed to take better care with his/her comportment, he/she did a drive-by on my Talk page to call me a troll [198]. I thought that was ill-advised to do in the middle of a TBAN discussion regarding the very issue of name-calling, however, in fairness Newimpartial has warned us that he/she can be "triggered" [199] by different words or phrases. Prior to a few days ago, I'd had no interaction with Newimpartial so am not clear what his/her trigger phrases are - perhaps it's just a matter of asking them to provide some kind-of notice so that other editors are aware to avoid things that might cause them to lose control? I haven't really thought through the logistics of that, and maybe it's not feasible, but just wanted to throw out a blue sky idea. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

<facepalm>.--Jorm (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, IMHO, the solution to incivility, in general, is a block and if that doesn't work, it is repeated for escalating periods of time for each incident. If the real problem here is incivility, a topic ban on AfDs won't fix that making a topic ban on AfDs entirely inappropriate for Newimpartial's behaviour. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on all counts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A basic premise of civil interaction is never give unintended offence. There is a corollary, oft ignored, never take unintended offence. If an individual is incapable of distinguishing between intended and unintended offence, and is persistent in attacking those they believe have 'wronged' them they they are not capable of participating in a collaborative environment without causing disruption. There is nothing objectively wrong to being sensitive to slights but it is the responsibility of the one with such sensitivity, not anyone else, to manage it ie WP:AGF. If they can not do so and rather continue to attack other editors then Wikipedia can manage without their services until such a time as they learn. Jbh ^Talk 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the offence given in Chetsford's case is entirely unintended. They have already explicitly stated that they don't believe RPG designers to be creative professionals - directing offense at literally a whole class of authors and they persist in insisting that their complete lack of knowledge of this creative industry shouldn't at all preclude them from mass-nominating award winning games, major publishing houses and some of the best-known authors within the genre. After having engaged with Chetsford on several AfDs there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on and, while I still think NewImpartial lost their cool and acted inappropriately with regard to WP:CIVIL the more I look into this the muddier it seems. What I see here is a history of a user who seems to have taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of RPG content for reasons that aren't entirely clear who has responded with condescension when confronted with the often arbitrary and inappropriate character of their AfD nominations; one whose tendentious conduct on the AfDs caused one user who is passionate about the topic, and deeply informed on it, to unfortunately lose their cool. But WP:CIR seems to apply here, and I'm doubtful that Chetsford was competent to assess the relative merit of RPG publishers based on their repeated expression of derision for the genre.Simonm223 (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think User:Newimpartial has "warned us that he/she can be "triggered" by different words or phrases." I think the usage of "triggered" in that instance merely means "proximal cause", as in "To spark a response, especially a negative emotional response, in (someone)." It is a figure of speech rather than something to be understood literally. Saying that you are "not clear what his/her trigger phrases are" is allowing for none other than a literal understanding of the word as used in that instance. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the sequence of events is not clear from Chetsford's comments of 16:28, 18 August. The diff he presented, [200] is a comment that I offered to remove if he were offended [201]; instead he closed the discussion so I could not do so [202] with the ominous edit summary, "this isn't going to end well". This fits the pattern of our earlier interactions: when I offered to strikethrough my "incompetent" comments [203] he did not take me up on it, and when, near the beginning of our interaction on the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD, I unilaterally tried to delete our NOTFORUM digression with an apology [204], Chetsford refused [205]; I eventually struck through just the offensive terms in my comments with additional apologies [206]. If it is not clear from context, I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question.

Also, on the matter of triggers, I don't have PTSD and don't have "trigger words"; my relevant triggers are deliberately misleading statements ("puzzle and game book" [[207]] edited in to replace "RPG handbook" - a little Easter egg I did not see until just now), moving goal posts ([208] [209] [210]and q.v. my reply [211]), false equivalencies ([212], for example) and ICANTHEARYOU (e.g on the term "fanzine": [213] followed by my reply [214] and Chetsford doubling down [215]) - these are the main components of civil trolling - as well as GAMING and POINTY behaviour ([216] in the context of [217] and [218] in the immediate context of [219])

Now I am familiar with the argument, much more frequently heard since Gamergate, "if you can't deal with trolling, don't be active on the internet". And I do try to prepaRe myself and avoid venues where this kind of calculated hostility are more common - I steeled myself for ANI, for example, and try to be careful about Talk pages. When I steel myself, as in the Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs, I can respond with civility to the incivility of others, as those discussions show. But I had never encountered at AfD the strategies I mentioned in the last paragraph applied with such intensity and consistency. My initial attempt to AGF translated into outrage about competence and the embarrassing mess of my contribution to the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD [220], which I will never do again and the bulk of which I would have deleted last week had I been permitted to do so [221].

To conclude, I recognize that I am easily Trolled and don't ask for special treatment; I know what kinds of discussions I need to avoid and have been reminded that so need to behave as in Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk, and not as in Dominic McDowall-Thomas. I recognize that I have violated NPA in using terms like "incompetent" and "clueless" - I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future.

But there is more to WP:CIVIL than WP:NPA, and the same behaviours that trigger me are, I believe, also destructive for WP as a whole. Therefore I would encourage Admins to consider the evidence set out in my original ANI filing and not let the BOOMERANG discussion - which I did expect - distract from the sustained and still continuing pattern of incivility that was the trigger. I included diffs of my own UNCIVIL posts in my original filing because I felt that it was more important to try to direct attention at a sustained piece of civil trolling than to try to escape personal scrutiny and responsibility for interventions that I acknowledge as mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know how to make this any more plain but: none of the things you claim are "uncivil" are uncivil. Not a one. You're reaching, and in so reaching, are wasting a LOT of peoples' time. You're in a hole. Stop digging. Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read. Just stop.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Jorm—"Just stop"? Why wouldn't an editor defend themselves? Oh—they are 100% wrong and those that advocate that disciplinary measures be taken against them are automatically 100% right? In my reading of Newimpartial's post immediately above they are conceding that "I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question." Should they "Just stop" conceding that they "did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question"? They said "I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future." But this isn't a black and white issue. Or maybe it is—I haven't looked into this case very carefully. You say "Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read." This whole thing is a giant wall of text. I've had lengthy encounters with Newimpartial. I consider them a well-meaning and entirely competent editor. I've disagreed with them. But I respect them. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - More evidence than necessary is better than not enough. A clear and detailed case for such a sanction, if one exists, has not been compiled. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  The diff you refer to was because they had initially posted a wall of text and I do not see how it is relevant to the discussion as it stands now. The material in that wall has now been discussed and the reason for the proposed ban is that the majority of the 'evidence' posted by the OP shows that they have a large and disruptive problem of failing to AGF in the topic area. This leads to them making repeated personal attacks against others editors, even during this ANI [222]. I proposed the initial term limited topic ban as the least intrusive method of addressing this; others thought it should be expanded to all AfD; and, with the diff I cited it seems that the personal attacks go beyond AfD. Canterbury Tail has even gone so far as to oppose this sanction because they see it is a PA problem not an AfD problem (CT please correct me if I misunderstand your reasoning)

  I quite understand your reticence to impose sanctions but I am curious to have your perspective on the behavior which the OP has illustrated in their own diffs. Do you see it as problematic? If so, can you suggest a way short of sanction to address it? The diff I cited here seems to indicate that a 'stern talking to' will not be sufficient to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced NFPA 704 and Chembox Hazards

Someone who geolocates to Kurgan, Kurgan Oblast, Russia is editing often obscure chemicals. The anon is adding numerous unsourced {{Chembox Hazards}} content that usually conflict with sources - when I can find the sources. I think I have seen one edit that added correct information. The warnings and hazards are overdone - likely wp:OR.
The anon was outraged that the health code on the NPFA 704 for ethanol was 2 whilst for methanol is a 1. - even though that's what the sources state.
All are mobile edits. Not sure where to post an ANI notice to. The anon does seem to return to some IPs after editing at others.

• 5.164.42.24 (talk) - needs checking
• 176.96.82.225 (talk)
• 37.113.64.191 (talk)
• 176.214.102.112 (talk)
• 37.113.65.54 (talk) - this IP was blocked. Some eloquent edit summaries and talk page PAs here re methanol
• 176.214.100.137 (talk)
• 5.164.38.149 (talk) - Here the anon changed the GHS pictogram to a value in conflict with the ref on the chembox. The 704 was increased from a reference that I added after my revert. Also added an MPFA 704 to barium bromide that I could not find a source for.
• 37.113.68.37 (talk)

There are probably more IP addresses that I haven't seen. It is quite difficult to track down all the IPs being used. Is there a way to search for this sort of edit?
Should a range block be added? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've encountered this individual before. Everything I have checked has contradicted reliable sources, so at this point everything should be reverted unless accompanied by a reliable source that confirms the information. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions on dealing with this? The anon's edits are difficult to detect. Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Because the IP addresses are so variable, I don't think blocks will help much. I'm not sure there is much to do beyond reverting when you encounter it. You've made a report here and notified WikiProject Chemistry, so that should make others aware so they can help out when they encounter it too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter will help, but it hardly seems worthwhile for one issue. It would have collateral damage too. A consensus to revert, and then reverting will probably do. I have wasted time trying to confirm some of these values, and in one case it was possible, but mostly not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• 5.164.42.24/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 176.214.102.112/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 37.113.64.191/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 176.96.82.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no identifiable range yet, but regularly used - blocked 1 month by Ed --Swarm ♠ 00:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Will look around to see if there are any other ips/ranges being used by this person. Swarm ♠ 01:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• It looks like this is all we can do in terms of rangeblocking for now. All of the above rangeblocks do not appear to have any collateral. Let us know if more IPs pop up. Swarm ♠ 01:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTFORUM at George Bell (bishop)

In my view this talk posting is inappropriate, as I explained here. I removed it, and it has been restored. The justification for restoring it is here.

This just opens up an ugly cans of worms, on a whole bunch of levels - has nothing to do with improving the page based on RS and is really just arguing with a banned user in a place where they cannot respond. It is not what talk pages are for.

Please remove and trout. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, the post is dealing with published points on the article content. The article discusses the Carlile report and the legal standard. Per WP:TALK this is valid use of an article talk page. The claim 'can of worms' and of arguing with a banned user is inarticulate parade of horribles and assumption of bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, as I agree with Jytdog. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And what part of WP:TALKNO are you relying on for your bad faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The part about arguing with a banned user that can't respond. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you are just relying on your bad faith. Not on WP:TALKNO or WP:TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit war it then if you feel so strongly about it. Two editors have told you otherwise. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Told me? You have no basis in WP:Talk for what you have done, we don't rely on your ipsa dixit. And your 'I'm an editor, I say so' is just ridiculous diversion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan, I don't get it. Are you proposing any changes to the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are edits to the legal standard(s) discussed/recommended in the Carlile report, which is an issue of civil vs. criminal - it requires background understanding of the opinions on which standard should be and were applied, and of course how much to go into it. The article [223] currently highlights the Carlile criminal standard without discussing the Carlile recommendation for the civil standard. Also, the fact of police investigation and opinion, which was co-commitment with settlement is now not discussed (it has been removed), at all (except that there was a referral), and perhaps that is right but the talk page is for exploring that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the article being proposed as a ref? The thread isn't about improving the article, should be redacted so it is focussed on the article and specific proposal to include it as a ref. As editors, we can get our background understanding from outside wikipedia, as with any article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The ref is being used as outside background understanding for Wikipedia editors, that's how the thread uses it, so as you say it uses it the way Wikipedia editors use it in improving articles - as for it being a ref in the article, not without discussion, See WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:BIASED and Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not news, it's opinion. And as long as you're throwing links around, how about WP:DAILYMAIL, actually -- or had you forgotten that? --Calton | Talk 11:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it was news, so what are you talking about, the links I linked to are about opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, surely the only valid way to talk about this article is if we want to include it as a ref. Calton, the article was published in the Spectator! Was also published in the Mail on Sunday which is surely excluded from WP:DAILYMAIL (e.g., all Daily mail links are gone from the article author's page, the Mail on Sunday links remain) but if we were to use this article as a ref (perhaps on Criticism of Wikipedia but not the Bell article, IMO) we would surely use the Spectator url, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely there is not one way to talk about a published article. The ref deals with the subject of the George Bell investigation. If you want to talk about Wikipedia criticism, which I have not referred to anywhere, let alone on the George Bell talk page, then that is another matter but it's not, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your post was very clearly all about arguing with Hitchens. You quote his piece, and argue with the quoted bits. As I noted at your talk page, his blog has a comment section where you can argue with him to your heart's content. I understand the impulse -- I drafted a comment on his post in his Mail column about his banning, and then closed the tab instead of saving it, with the Philip Cross mess very much in mind.

Hitchens is banned and there is no good in arguing with him here; folks can argue with him there if they like, but then they should stay away from anything related to him here per the Cross case; what he writes are opinion pieces so they are of minimal value in any given article as sources. So there is really not much good for WP or for any individual editor in engaging with him or his pieces. In my view. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No. My post was directly addressing facts and opinions in the George Bell matter, I only discussed parts on the George Bell matter. Whether you like the source or not is irrelevant, we discuss matters even in sources we don't like. My interest in my post is only discussing facts, propositions, and opinions in the George Bell matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing? I can't see any. You are giving your opinions about the article but Bell's talk page isn't the place for that. You could use your personal space or talk directly to him via Mail on Sunday. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered this above - discussions on talk pages are for raising issues on coverage of facts, propositions and opinions, and that's what I was doing. If you have a question or a comment or a critique about the facts, propositions and opinions discussed then discuss it on the talk page. That is article development process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As a general comment even with BLPTALK concerns, discussing how a topic is being covered in sources that are not appropriate for WP (like Daily Mail now), but are popular enough that will possibly create a stir that will end up affecting the coverage of the topic seems perfectly in line with talk page guidelines. In a case like Bell, where there is seemingly a lot of misinformation or questions being tosses around across all sources (RS and non-RS), having awareness of what those are and how that could impact the article. In the case of the Hitchings opinion piece, if it is/has been published in the Daily Mail, there will be people coming to WP to try to "correct" the affected articles, so I see no issue with Alanscotttwalker focusing on points that will likely be targets of these new editors to pre-emptively shut them down. Preventing vandalism of this type is improving the article, so is 100% fair talk page use. --Masem (t) 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens hasn't asked people to vandalise the article and there are plenty of eyes on it already. People can get their awareness of Bell from Google. Alanscottwalker, I am sure we could have an interesting discussion as I disagree with your opinions but Bell's talk page is not a forum. I don't know how I would respond to you in an appropriate way on the talk page, appropriate meaning focussing on the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential draw of new editors to a WP article does not necessarily require an external source to tell their viewers/readers to edit WP; it's the fact that WP is mentioned tied to this is enough that I would (and I did, over at WP:AN a few days ago) that this exists out there. Not necessary to take any editing action, but just to prepare for potential incoming new/IP edits. --Masem (t) 15:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard, Come now, it's difficult to believe you know how to say 'well, I disagree with [whatever you you disagree with], (and note to disagree with anything I wrote requires not one wit of discussion of the author, because nothing I wrote discusses or even mentions the author - the comments I made would apply to any journalist who wrote what I was writing about), and it's also difficult to believe you don't know how to ask 'what impact might this have on the article?' if that is the question you have. Do you not know the article discusses the Carlile report and what lead up to it? That subtopic of the article by its very nature is filled with facts and opinions from multiple angles (just read the Carlile report, if you don't think that). And yes, passim Masem, it is exceedingly important to the integrity of Wikipedia, we keep very clear the demarcation of facts and opinions straight in such a matter (see, WP:NPOV, and see the first section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch especially 'attribution' and 'said'). As for any insistence of having to have a worked-out concrete edit proposals at the beginning of the discussion, that's not only contrary the consensus use of talk pages and therefore wrong, but it makes absolutely no sense to bar discussion before a proposal may arise (that odd claim of 'don't discuss before proposal' is basically backwards). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to take much more of my time with this. You quoted Hitchens' piece, and argued with Hitchens' points. Not somebody else. Hitchens' piece is not used as a source. There are a kajillion opinion pieces about the Bell affair, and we are not currently citing any, and we are unlikely to cite any. What you think of what Hitchens thinks is not something that belongs on the article talk page. Both are irrelevant with regard to improving the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But your assumptions and conclusions are still wrong, my actual talk page comment is wholely focused on ideas related to the article, not person. At the time I wrote on the talk page, the George Bell (bishop) article discussed a referral to the police, without relaying what came of the investigation, and the George Bell article prominently uses "found" when discussing opinion, which MOS warns confuses fact and opinion. The article also only relates part of that opinion and not the opinion on using the civil-law standard. The few quotes in my comment (aimed at dividing fact and opinion) relate solely to these issues, and they are very few in relation to the entire long published source. Now, if you read the Carlile report, you will see that the author of the published source is described as a person representative of other people ("people such as") interested in the George Bell matter, and as a journalist who hosted a laudatory television program on George Bell. [224] pp 25 and 52. So, while it's not just anyone-off-Fleet-street in relation to Bell opinion makers, it is still the case as far as the talk-page comments I made: no mention or discussion of the author is needed or done. Again, my comment is only focused on ideas, not person. The article is likely prone to the fact/opinion blur, which I addressed in my comment and all in the context of the sub-topic of the George Bell (bishop) article. All this is what WP:Talk says we do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend that some admin close this tread and trout Alanscottwalker already. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to be here, fine, but repeating of your demand from your OP is needless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by EscapeX: rangeblock?

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

---

Blocked user EscapeX has been using IPs in Scotland to make a bunch of troublesome edits at articles about the Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson. The most recent IP range is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:D62A:7C00:0:0:0:0/64. EscapeX was dedicated to the Jacksons topics, the same as this IP range.

• The IPs are edit warring to change a quote to say "Diana Ross" rather than "Diana" as in the original.[225][226][227]
• The IP wars a fact into a falsehood.[228][229]
• The IP wars to change the Bad (tour) into the "Bad World Tour" in contravention of the consensus obtained at Talk:Bad_(tour)#Requested_move_2012.[230][231][232] Note that the consensus was unsuccessfully disputed by EscapeX.[233]

Is a rangeblock appropriate? Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Range blocked for one month. Swarm ♠ 01:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Racist vandalism from Verizon range

See Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b020:1621:cd43:4345:b53a:9b5c/44. For at least the past week, there has been frequent racist vandalism from this range, particularly at Indian people and Dunkin' Donuts. Some IPs are currently blocked, but they come back to Verizon, so I'm guessing this is someone with a cell phone, and virtually unlimited IPs. Is a rangeblock possible to stop this? Home Lander (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a /39 (Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/39). Smaller range blocks won't accomplish much. It looks like the articles are semi-protected now, so maybe we should see what happens. If it spreads, I can do a range block. The collateral damage looks worse than it actually is. There are a couple block-evading IP socks who edit from this range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Electoral 2020

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

---

Hi Electoral 2020 should be blocked for personal attack. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they have never been warned properly and might have no clue that this is not ok. They have also not been warned against edit-warring, which is likely to get them blocked much sooner.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User Liamnotneeson

With this edit, Liamnotneeson has added an inescapably large Black Sun (occult symbol) to his userpage. This is a neo-Nazi symbol with very few other common modern meanings, and it's very clear from his behavior that he knows this.

Since returning after a year of inactivity, this editor has aggressively pushed to downplay the white nationalism of the Identitarian movement (starting here and continuing in article and on talk), has argued against calling the Unite the Right rally "white nationalist", has (correctly) shifted a link at American Nazi Party from white nationalism#white power to white pride, and has posted to Talk:Jews to say that "Jewish people seem to be more socially progressive" but that "there is debate on whether modern progressivism is achieving human progress to begin with."

I was willing to assume good faith for these edits until he adding a close cousin to the swastika to his user page. This editor is familiar with the Unite the Right rally, and this specific version of the symbol was prominently used by neo-Nazis at that event.[234] The use of Nazi symbolism is inherently disruptive, and will drive away both new and old editors. These childish games show that this editor is no longer here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Inescapable is a bit a stretch. Easily missable on my computer. Also where I come from, the black sun does not mean neo-Nazism Liamnotneeson (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I ensure that the edits are in good faith. Right-wing politics is the main topic I browse and know enough about to make edits on. I'm not very familiar with the Unite the Right rally, either. Liamnotneeson (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The first talk discussion on the identitarian talk page was my first time on Wikipedia in a year and my first time on any talk page, and I definitely was then and am still learning how Wikipedia works, and how to put my own opinions aside. The article on the Jews was based on a misunderstanding of the context of the phrase and I resigned my suggestion after getting a response. I would like to know what you imply by mentioning that, anyways. I don't know how you could get arguing the removal of white nationalism from the edit on the Unite the Right talk, either. I was not supporting nor arguing against his claim.

I am not a neo-Nazi, unlike how you seemingly imply. I despite Nazism and Hitler as much as the next man. I am not on this site to push a message, and am sorry for coming across as if I was. Liamnotneeson (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As a Jewish person I deplore Nazism, but if people are alliwed to display communist ideology on their user and talk pages, then why can't others display the equally deplorable Nazi ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9511:3721:19F6:D1F:EF7:BDF8 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• The black sun appears to have been removed. If its restored, I'd suggest bring the page to MFD on the grounds of WP:POLEMIC. As for the above commenter: Communist symbols should not be on talk pages either. 08:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Agree with Beyond My Ken that MFD is a better venue for this dispute than AN/I. That said, if you want to get rid of communist symbols on all user pages, you have your work cut out for you. FenceSitter (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not really, deletion of the user box would do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• If it was "easily missable" Liamnotneeson wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Prior to editing far-right articles, Liamnotneeson started by editing Prospect Ridge Academy, which is in COlorado, the same location the IP is from. In Colorado the black sun is a neo-Nazi symbol. Logging off to try and derail the conversation with false equivalence nonsense doesn't fill me with confidence. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Logging off to try and derail the conversation with false equivalence nonsense doesn't fill me with confidence. What are you talking about? And I meant "where" as in a location on the internet, not as in a physical place, but thanks for trying to out me. Liamnotneeson (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Grayfell, if you have suspicions of someone logging off to sock, report it at SPI or chime in privately with a checkuser for running a quick check. Leaving that, your outing attempts may end up getting you blocked (or the IP, depending upon the depth of discretion you show from hereon). Thanks, Lourdes 12:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably remove the userbox saying you live in Denver then. Curdle (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• What a good idea! I'll do that DistractedOften (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• To review: This person added neo-Nazi imagery to his own user page. He did not do this as a userbox, instead as a larger image. There is no userbox to delete in this situation. (There have been multiple previous discussion about deleting political userboxes as a class, but they don't seem to go anywhere). The image was floated so that it always appears on his user page in the same place, making it distracting and unavoidable. This user made multiple edits about American places and American far-right politics. This user has claimed that the black sun symbol wasn't a neo-Nazi symbol where he is from. This person previously added userboxes saying he is from the Denver and the United States. A Denver IP address pops in to announce their own Jewish heritage and imply that communism is just as bad as neo-Nazism. I hope everyone realizes that even if we accepted this as a coincidence and believed what this person says, this is still completely irrelevant to this discussion. One doesn't have to be Jewish to know that a movement which advocates genocide should not be tolerated. I don't care about blocking the IP for socking, I care about preventing neo-Nazi advocacy and memes from slipping through the cracks. A userpage containing neo-Nazi self-promotion is very far from Wikipedia's mission. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Advocating genocide, or acts of violence, is not tolerated on user pages per WP:USER, but, ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence, but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.). This is assuming that the black sun symbol, which has in any case now been deleted, even counts as a statement of support for Nazism in particular. FenceSitter (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis are "controversial"? No, Wikipedia does draw lines when necessary, and using Wikipedia as if it were MySpace to share neo-Nazi propaganda crosses the line. If you want to make the case that it's possible to advocate neo-Nazism without advocating genocide, you've got your work cut out for you. We would absolutely not permit anyone to add File:National Socialist swastika.svg as a decoration to their userpage. Nobody should be fooled by this childish replacement, especially when evaluating the editor's obvious prior familiarity and behavior. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, we let users have symbols on their pages identifying themselves as fascist, neo-fascist, Italian fascist, Francoist, Falangist, "non-Nazi National Socialist" and even Iron Guard (very nasty history IMO). I can see a case for deleting all such political statements and symbols from user pages, but MFD is the place to have that discussion. In the mean time, the statement on WP:USER seems to be the closest we have to policy on the issue. If you want to "draw lines", you need to get consensus on them first. FenceSitter (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we allow users to identify as explicitly Nazi, though? We allow them to go "ok, we don't think the Holocaust was a good thing, but other than that, we happen to like (specific non-genocide-y ideas)," sure. But can you find any userboxes that allow a user to say "yep, the Jews deserved it"...? Because that's what separates Nazism from those other ideologies you list (as well as various Communist ideologies). Identifying as a Nazi is no different than explicitly advocating the destruction of anyone who would risked going to the camps. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, there was a long debate about this (in the appropriate place), which I suppose we could rehash if we want. It wasn't resolved, instead the userbox got speedy deleted because no-one was using it and to avoid the further divisiveness of the debate. In any case I don't think the black sun symbol, which according to the article is more ambiguous, is equivalent to "yep, the Jews deserved it". It might very well mean "ok, we don't think the Holocaust was a good thing, but other than that, we happen to like (specific non-genocide-y ideas)" or maybe just weird German esotericism. AND, in any case, the symbol has actually been removed from the page. FenceSitter (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – I should like to note that Liamnotneeson is now User:DistractedOften and should update their signature.

--Auric talk 22:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If all this editor is doing is identifying as a neo-Nazi on his user page using a swastika variant then I think that should be permitted. After all, neo-Nazis are allowed to edit Wikipedia and I suppose we can't really prevent them. I can appreciate why people would find it offensive but I don't think Wikipedia should get into the business of stopping offence. Personally I don't think it's a bad idea for white supremacists and neo-Nazis to identify themselves because we can at least then keep an eye on their edits. Banning neo-nazis from displaying a swastika does create a perception problem in that Wikipedia looks the other way when it comes to dangerous left-wing ideologies but comes down hard on the far-right. Provided the Nazis just self-identify and don't start explicitly advocating human rights atrocities then it's not a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this entirely. FenceSitter (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I do think we are inconsistent about this and the more that happens the more legitimacy the white nationalist narrative gets. But I think the edit summary "B l a c k s u n r i s i n g" makes this one an easy call, fortunately, so we don't have to spend too much time worrying about the justification or the slippery slope - agree with TonyBallioni, this is pretty clear CIR stuff. [235] Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• I’ve indefinitely blocked: crossed with the above post, but I’ll explain it here: anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, but they are not allowed to edit disruptively. Promoting an ideology that is genocidal by its very nature and that thinks other human being shouldn’t exist is incompatible with the English Wikipedia and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. This editor knew what they were doing. They clearly posted this on their user page knowing it would provoke a response, and then decided to play dumb at this ANI about it when they were called out on their hate speech: which is what displaying any Nazi iconography prominently on one’s userpage is.
  That behavior is inherently disruptive and incompatible with the values of our project and movement. Once you move from advocating for a controversial view under the guise of NPOV to actively displaying iconography from Nazis you’ve crossed the line where blocking is needed to prevent future disruption to the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony, and would likely have made the same action. Some viewpoints just cannot be welcome here, they are very, very rare, but neo-Nazism is one of them. One does not need to go further than display the icons of that viewpoint to communicate they are mired in racial hatred, at a very, very minimum. Good block. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Also agree with the block. Only held back because we have users actually defending the user in question.
      Also, I've since noticed that Liamnotneeson's most vocal advocate happens to be a WP:PRECOCIOUS self-admitted WP:SPA who has been carrying out similar edits to Identitarian movement related articles. Huh. I suppose that should be a new thread, but I've got to turn in. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

      Just to clarify, Ian is referring to FenceSitter (I hope!). Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

      • • Yep. I sadly disagree with you on this point, but I know full well that you're here in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          It's not a big deal Ian. I am not going to lose sleep over some Nazi not being able to display a Swastika. My point is more of a general one in that I think it's a slippery slope to determine which symbols editors can and cannot display so me personally, I would just not do it, but I fully understand why other editors think it crosses the line. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          It would be helpful if there were clear policy on which symbols may be displayed, rather than being decided ad hoc by admins. FenceSitter (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          No. Then we’d miss something and couldn’t block. If someone doesn’t understand why displaying a Nazi symbol on their userpage in this fashion is disruptive, they aren’t competent enough to be editing anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          "Displaying symbols associated with Nazism is considered disruption", for example, might be clearer than "acts of violence does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes" etc. Apparently this isn't obvious to everyone, and it might have prevented this incident. FenceSitter (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"It's a slippery slope to determine which symbols editors can and cannot display." I concur. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support block - The editor removed Black Sun after negative comments about it, changed their username, created a new user page, and then added Black Sun again. They knew exactly what they were doing. I'll also note that in their userbox list, they identify as as "identitarian", another of the myriad far-right/alt-right/white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-Nazi/neo-Fascist groups that society is currently being plagued with -- as is Wikipedia. They're all slightly different but, at the bottom, they're all the same, and we don;t need any of them. If people with those views want to edit quietly and productively, that's just fine as long as their beliefs don't creep into their edits, but there's no place here for those who want to attract attention to those foul ideologies. We don't allow pedophiles, and we don't allow terrorist propaganda. I'm fine with banning Communist agit-prop as well, include symbology, if there's a real need to. We have a tool to stop this crap, WP:POLEMIC, and it should be used more often.
  My compliments to Tony B. for a righteous block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• "created a new user page, and then added Black Sun again" - I don't think this part is correct. The user page was actually moved, so the edit history moved with it. The editor did not add the Black Sun again. FenceSitter (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are correct. Above comment edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first bullet point of WP:POLEMIC is too vague to be of any use, and the latter two points do not apply. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Political ideologies all arguably violate POLEMIC. It should be applied consistently or not at all and the wording should be clarified. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose block in case that wasn't clear. I appreciate Beyond My Ken's point that there is a WP:POLEMIC case for removing and banning all political identifications, or all "extreme" political identifications, on user pages, but there needs to be consensus about this as policy, rather than admins indefinitely blocking users ad hoc. (And given the ambiguity of the black sun symbol, it's not clear to me that it necessarily amounted to an identification with Nazism.) FenceSitter (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC is already policy, and is quite clearly applicable. I agree with TonyBallioni that enumerating a specific list leaves far too much room for gaming the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). might justify removing the image, at MFD as you suggested, but not indefinitely blocking the editor especially when he removed the image himself. FenceSitter (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block for the reason given, i.e. "disruptively displaying Nazi symbolism on userpage." Wikipedia:Child protection aside, no editor should be blocked for identifying a certain way or displaying a partisan symbol (however vile their perceived identification may be). If their editing of articles and talk pages rises to a blockable level, then block them for that. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support block. To put it very mildly, I don't think allowing people to endorse or encourage an ideology that calls for the subjugation or murder of a significant portion of our editorial population is conducive to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly agree with TonyBallioni on Promoting an ideology that is genocidal by its very nature and that thinks other human being shouldn’t exist is incompatible with the English Wikipedia and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. Do we really need a policy on this? Apparently, from how often people dispute these blocks, yes?.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support block Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for genocide advocacy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Says a person with Marxist userboxes on his userpage. We currently have an on-going genocide trial for Marxists who were educated in French universities and then used those teachings to commit a genocide in Cambodia. Hypocrite. --Pudeo (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Any intellectually honest review of Marx's ideas and what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did and even said will readily show glaring disagreement between them. Even then, Nazism's stated goal was genocide (ultimately of everyone who wasn't a Nazi), Marx's stated goals did not include genocide. Don't excuse Nazis further by downplaying their stated goals'. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment FYI: The Black Sun isn't a banned symbol in Germany according to the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, although it covers a wide variety of Nazi-related symbols, even simple runes. --Pudeo (talk) 9:37 am, Today (UTC−4)
• indef + ban Obviously abusing the openness of Wikipedia to advocate for an ideology, and an odious one at that via the Black Sun. That is not what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef for FenceSitter

Following on User:Ian.thomson's comment above, User:FenceSitter's behavior is the same as Liamnotneeson, just without the symbol on their userpage. Editing privileges are given freely in the good faith that people will use them to build an encyclopedia. They are not given so people can come here solely to advocate in favor of some ideology; good faith is not a suicide pact. This user's entire history of contribs = WP:PROMO violation. Declaring that one is a SPA doesn't make it somehow "better", and advocating one POV is not improving Wikipedia.Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disrupting editing, deleting talk page posts, uncivil wikithreats

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

---

Jytdog deleted comments by two other editors, 62.11.0.22 and HiLo48. They were discussing neutrality of the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The pretense was that they allegedly violated WP:NOTAFORUM. When I restored the messages[236][237], the user reverted me and templated my talk page[238][239]. Attempts to discuss the matter on his talk page [240] made no impact. I.am.a.qwerty reported that this user used WP:NOTAFORUM as a pretense in a content dispute on another article as well[241]. Heptor (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the hat. That’s clearly a personal POV-driven rant as opposed to an unbiased assessment of the article’s neutrality (i.e. an objective assessment of the article’s text compared against the body of sources). Unacceptable conduct for a talk page, particularly one under discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 13:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also endorse removal/hatting and had previously removed the talk page comment as a COI-inspired rant. Fell afoul of WP:NOTAFORUM at very least and doesn't belong there. Despite "free speech" arguments made, Wikipedia is not bound by US First Amendment responsibilities, nor should it be. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comments by three editors has now been aggressively removed or hatted (JC7V7DC5768 [242], HiLo48 [243], 62.11.0.22 [244]). This has no basis in policy. Free speech is a fundamental pillar of any free society, not just the US Constitution. We need to be able to have a discussion about neutrality of that article without without getting steamrolled. Heptor (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm "aggressive hatting". Sounds like something I should try. Kindly explain how one conveys "aggression" via template:hat, if that's what was used. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I think the aggression was conveyed through the promptness and persistency of the said hatting, through the fact that the comments by HiLo48 and by JC7V7DC5768 were deleted and not just hatted, and through immediate placement of level 2 and level 3 templates on my otherwise lovable personal talk page. If you want to try it IRL, try placing a hat on someone who don't want to wear a hat, and yell that anyone who attempts to remove the hat will get suspended from school. Heptor (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it certainly wasn't a "Let's chat about this" kind of approach, was it? More like "You're expelled, and don't ever come back" approach. There's been a lot of that kind of behaviour around around that article over the years. I wonder why some feel the need to behave that way? HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the hatting, and I've moved the hat down after Heptor tried to continue the thread on the talkpage. Heptor, please read WP:FREESPEECH and WP:NOTFORUM. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate, and talkpages are for discussion of specific means of article improvement, supported by sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously Wikipedia runs by its own bylaws, not by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I am familiar with WP:NOTFORUM, it prohibits discussions that are not related to improving of the article. Posts by IP62 and by HiLo48 discuss the content of the article, in particular the issue of its neutrality and selection of sources. So they are not falling within WP:NOTAFORUM, and even if they were, the bar for editing other people's comments is high. As mentioned in WP:TALKO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Could you please clarify how your position on hatting these comments fits with the editing policy of this project? Heptor (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct -- Wikipedia runs by its own bylaws, not by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• from their first revert on the basis of liberty of speech and all (edit note), and since they wrote in that diff, I will indeed defend to the death wikiblock his right to say it. Yes, per Evelyn Beatrice Hall. (strike in original) and since they have persisted (as noted above) since I warned them that they might indeed find their privileges restricted or removed, it appears that a short block is in order to prevent further disruption and help them see that there is indeed no "free speech" here; such claims are based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I note my comment has now been completely removed. That is censorship. It contained specific content about improving the article by removing some unacceptable, biased content. Content that came from a blatantly biased commentator. I gave reasons. No reason was given for the removal of my comment. I also got an unacceptably threatening comment on own Talk page from Jytdog. This is a classic example of the bias of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So your follow on message there had edit note Russia haters and you added yet more personal opinion in the thread. All inappropriate for an article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

When I studied negotiation skills many years ago I learnt it was important to try to understand the real goals of those disagreeing with me. The Russia haters comment was a guess at the real motivation on display there. I could be wrong, but since you gave no reason at all for deleting my comment, I feel entitled to hazard such a guess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So Tony Abbott [245] is the problem, and it's important for you to air your views about him on that talkpage? I'm just guessing about your real motivation, mind you. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My views on Tony Abbott are echoed by the vast majority of Australians, the people more likely to be right about him than non-Australians who just happen to like what he said in an uninformed, anti-Russian rant. Yes, I do find it problematic that content from a rant by a now discredited politician is given such a high profile in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then suggest reduction or removal of Abbott's comments without mounting a soapbox to air your views about Australian politics. For my part a wholesale axing of reactions by politicians in response to tragedies encyclopedia-wide would be a valuable improvement, but I would rather express that on its own than add in my views on the individual politicians. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

now unhatted and a further comment giving yet more opinion. Some blocks would be preventative here. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to explain what is wrong with the comments, rather than appearing to simply want to silence people. I unhatted the thread to demonstrate that the claimed consensus for content in that article is opposed by several editors. Do you not want that fact known? HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the hatted (and later deleted) IP comment, to me the main problem was that it was an unformatted wall-of-text and thus appeared to be a drive-by rant rather than a comment on the article. If someone had attempted to insert some paragraph breaks rather than simply hat and dismiss it, it would have been more helpful in my opinion, since at least two experienced editors, Martinevans123 and HiLo48, agreed with them. (Please note: I have no comment on the validity of any of those three people's points.) I support restoring the IP comment, and perhaps adding in some para breaks, since two editors have responded to that comment. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just make sure you're going by accessibility guidelines, Softlavender. You and I both have a lot to learn in that area. Also, please remember that Martinevans is best known for trivializing intensely serious discussions on admins' talk pages, and HiLo is on the side of football, or soccer--sorry I forgot which. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to direct the attention of the participants of this thread to entry number 1 at WP:OWB. Entry number 15 may also be of interest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no relevance, unless, as one who complained of censorship when his comment was removed, with no explanation, by someone who happened to disagree with me, you are accusing me of being up to no good, and thereby attacking me. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but it's not clear. Perhaps you need to elaborate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to say that you might benefit from a reading of WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

49.180.48.193 vandalism only ip

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

---

The edits by this ip consist of nothing but vandalism but no admin has yet taken action. Akld guy (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

TYVM. Akld guy (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Help with deletions

Off-Wikipedia, the recently retired Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) asked the following of me: "Would you be so kind as to delete my user page and subpages at EN-Wiki? Forgot to do that." I received an error message when I tried to start this process; would someone a little more familiar with the deletion tools be able to take this on? Many thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: Before I do this, are you absolutely sure it was Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) who requested the deletions of their user space pages? KnightLago (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KnightLago: Yes; no doubt at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor, again

Would some admin take a look at Robertinventor (talk · contribs) participation at Modern Mars habitability and the recent AFD and consider a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT block?

Context:

• See the Topic ban from Buddhism-related article, and the recently declined appeal.
• Since the topic-ban the user has shifted most of their activity to the life-on-Mars topic area but apparently the problems of POV/OR/SYNTH/CHEESE and exhausting article and talk-space conduct has continued.

To give just one example of WP:CIR/WP:IDHT: when nominated, the Modern Mars habitability was 212 KB long (with 36 sections and 60+ section/sub-section) and almost everyone at AFD has remarked about its bloat and need for WP:TNT. However despite that input, in an attempt to save it from deletion, Robert has expanded the article by another 30kB.

To be clear, I am not claiming that the latest activities alone would merit a block; just presenting them as the latest and continued manifestation of long-term problems. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Building on his prior history that produced and then preserved his Buddhism Tban, and Abecedare's opening comments, I'd like to add an example of why I think this user shows no effort to comprehend and apply core policies. During the AFD he thought all the criticism could be magically erased with a wave of the article rename wand. Its true he did take steps to undo the article rename after being told (mostly at his own talk page) that its poor procedure during an AFD. HOWEVER his responsiveness to a complaint about the form of the process while simply ignoring abundant input on the substance of core policies - after all the input in the prior Tban and failed removal request - shows that these problems are not going away. It is my hope we can prevent disruption of other subject areas, so adding a Mars Tban to the Buddhism Tban would not really help the project in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Abecedare: The two events are indeed related, but through actions of another editor, not myself. The article in question was added to Wikipedia in March 2017[246] and when the AfD began, there hadn't been any discussion on its talk page since January 2018. I have been editing here quietly ever since the topic ban, until the appeal. During the topic ban appeal I cited this article as an example of one of my mature articles. In the middle of the t-ban appeal, one of the editors involved in the discussion nominated the article for AfD. This editor, @Ca2james: had no previous edits of either Life on Mars[247] [248] or Modern Mars habitability[249] [250] and presumably found it through the t-ban appeal debate. So the AfD was not a suddenly developing issue in my editing behaviour or the article which had had only minor edits for many months.

Many of the votes to delete the article are by editors who came to it during or after the topic ban appeal debate. They are not topic specialists. Indeed the only section any have named in the AfD is the lede. Though there is a supposed issue of WP:RS the main cites I used, for instance the MEPEG group, the NASA planetary protection officers, the NASA Science goals, etc have not been discussed yet, either in the AfD or the article talk page. Though there is a supposed issue of WP:POV there has been no discussion yet of any particular WP:POV mentioned in the article or the supporting statements for the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

As for whether my edits have improved the article, or whether it should be deleted, that is not a behavioural matter but a matter for the AfD to decide. I have complied with all the requirements of an AfD and my posts publicizing the debate are all neutral and I link to them at the bottom of the debate as required. I have composed posts in the sandbox if they need editing with at most occasional minor edits, so it is not a matter for WP:REDACT. On article renaming then I did it as part of my attempts to improve the article. It has always been about possible Modern Mars habitability as there are no confirmed habitats yet but a lot of interest in the potential. Robert Walker (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone with two tban's and 20% of created articles erased I can fully understand how unjust or harsh community decisions or major opinions against one self can feel. I took several months long breaks from Wikipedia (self requested blocks), and then came back refreshed, and today try to be more open about other editor opinions, even if I disagree. Maybe start from a different perspective, take a Wikipedia article you acknowledge as great, and start writing on your blog about your topic at hand, in a similar Wikipedia fashion, on the point, keep it brief, reduce content to the substance, with the best references you can find, and then later maybe you surprise us all with something that is really missing, even if it only amounts to a few words or sentences. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Actually, I do that already. Your revert of my Clathrate Gun Hypothesis edits was my first reverted edit to my knowledge in more than a year of editing. The reason is that instead of BRD I do DB. I did that with that article too, posted about my proposed edits to the talk page, waited a few days, and then edited when no-one responded. I will gladly point to some good contributions I've made, there are many more. My edits usually remain in the articles from then on as they are to the point, well written and carefully cited to WP:RS:

• Hawking radiation#1976 Page numerical analysis - 28 July 2018 - added a paragraph about the timescale for evaporation for various sizes of black hole
• Perigean spring tide - 23 July 2018 - added statement about how often they occur to lede.
• Megatsunami#Potential future megatsunamis - 29 June 2018 - Recent research disproves possiblity of future La Palma and Hawaii megatsunamis
• Stellar population#Population III stars - 7 June 2018 - The European Southern Observatory's discovery of a pocket of bright stars in a red shift 7 galaxy.

It was a case of a whole bunch of things in quick succession - that Clathrate revert and debate, then my t-ban appeal then unexpectedly this AfD and now this indef block discussion. It was rather unwise, on refletion, to start my topic ban appeal in the middle of my first edit dispute I think since the topic ban itself. The timing could have been better! But you see these things with hindsight. I appreciate your understanding and sympathy! Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Re Robert's remark that My edits usually remain in the articles from then on as they are to the point, well written and carefully cited to RS. After being here years how can you not know that WP:CONTENTAGE is irrelevant? Also, you've often been warned of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Maybe on low traffic articles people don't engage with you because they conclude the possible benefit on a low traffic article is outweighed by the expected cost, i.e., that they may be facing a WP:FILIBUSTER like the AFD now underway? There's more than one explanation for not being reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or CIR block. Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in astrobiology and Mars-related articles for many, many years. Unfortunately, past rounds at ANI went nowhere and his attitude was emboldened: He dumped all his Mars assays in a single soapbox page. The current problem is not limited at AfD discussion, is not limited its title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but is a reflection of his pervasive POV and synthesis of bias, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. As noted, his blog and the article Modern Mars habitability are almos mirror images. When challenged, and with polite shamelessness, he wrote that we are "confused" on what his work actually means and wants to teach us science terminology. As other editor remarked: he uses publications that do not appear to have the related content. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. The poor content is a reflection of his chronic cowboy attitude and his inability to understand/comply to the most basic requirements of verifiability and neutrality. When you have to impose two or more topic bans on an editor, it shows the problem is not the topic, but the editor. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment unless someone volunteers to work as a mentor, a CIR block seems inevitable. That isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a mess. It's also a serious NPOV issue; any evidence (no matter how flimsy) that there might be life on Mars is expounded on at great length, while evidence that there isn't life on Mars is largely ignored. As there is no proof of life on Mars, that's not acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I got involved in this as a part of reviewing the recent "unblock from Buddhism space articles appeal" by Robert Walker, which was declined. Before my vote there, I was hoping to find evidence that Robert Walker contributions outside of the Buddhism space has been solid and respectful of our core content guidelines such as no original research, no synthesis, NPOV and the proper use of peer-reviewed scholarly sources and equivalent RS. To my disappointment, the evidence suggested the opposite and gave me reasons to oppose the appeal. RW has been disruptive in the Mars-related articles for quite a while, just like he was in the Buddhism-related articles. Please see more comments, diffs and details here. I support expanding his topic ban to include Mars and Astrobiology, or similar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Regretfully support topic ban or block (even an indef CIR block). Power~enwiki, I just recently [251] tried to help Robertinventor understand that his approach to sourcing and writing on Wikipedia was problematic, but to no avail. I tried to help him at least one,two,three times, and I'm not the only one who's tried to help: 2014,2016, and 2016 again He appears to have a fixed way of seeing how things work on Wikipedia and is unwilling or unable to see that his sourcing and Talk page approaches do not align with community consensus. And there's the wall of text FORUM posts that don't address other editor's concerns with lots of headings and bold and italic text stuck every which way.
  All of this has been going on for years in several topic areas. He had problems in the Mars topic area, which culminated in a declined RFAR. After that he turned to the Buddhism topic area, for which he was taken to ANI multiple times: 2015,2015 again,2016,2017, and 2017 again and ultimately received a topic ban. After the Buddhism topic ban, he returned to the Mars area, creating the article currently at AfD and others. He also pushed the Moregellons Lyme hypothesis, another fringe theory (see Talk:Moregellons Lyme hypothesis for how that went; there were problems with FRINGE and MEDRS).
  Based on the Morgellons and Buddhism issues, I do think that if he's topic banned from Mars, he would behave the same way in other topic areas. Robert clearly has lots to contribute but if he can't or won't do it according to Wikipedia principles, I'm thinking that Wikipedia is not the place for him. Sadly, I think an indef CIR block is on the horizon even if it doesn't happen this time. Ca2james (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I was about to suggest a siteban when I wrote this. I don't doubt the good intentions of Robert, but the problems keep being repeated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block on WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE grounds. User was given plenty of advice and numerous opportunities to improve his contributions in a collaborative spirit, and has repeatedly failed to follow even the simplest advice. His constant WP:BLUDGEONING of any discussions he is involved with has worn out the most patient editors. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Paid Editor from Upwork removing COI trmplates and AFDs

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

---

A paid editor is removing AFD template and COI tags. Lydia Janssen and Andrew Gruel. I accept I am also a paid editor, who was not hired for this job. Check user's IP location, you will link 100 paid and spammy accounts. Check his links with USER:Gharee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.11.58 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Pritish Chakraborty

IP user 27.106.98.222 appears to be making legal threats against a Wiki user at Pritish Chakraborty - see edit summary (sorry, I don't know how to add a diff link). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h, as it seems to be a dynamic IP, any sock can be blocked on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That article was created by Nikunj rathod (talk · contribs), apparently an associate of the subject, and heavily edited by IPs and Ascentpc (talk · contribs) (note that Ascent is the film company started by Pritish Chakraborty). Similar COI concerns with

• Article Mangal Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article Chal Pichchur Banate Hain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Romir Manchanda (talk · contribs)
• Romir manchanda (talk · contribs)
• Adarsh sahu (talk · contribs)
• Sakshisachar88 (talk · contribs)
• Bollywoodhelpline (talk · contribs)
• Fridaymoviez (talk · contribs)

Can some admin more familiar with current practices in the COI area see what needs to be done with the pages and users? Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate flooding of Special:Abuselog

In recent days, I've come across at least two IPs, likely the same person, that appear to be deliberately flooding the filter log. See the filter logs of 71.215.24.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.215.206.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); this is a typical edit, seems to be purposely triggering multiple filters with one edit. The IP range calc gives 71.215.206.106/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the range for these IPs, but my browser crashes trying to load the range contributions. Is a rangeblock possible to stop this? Home Lander (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

71.208.8.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now doing the same thing; when combined with the others this generates a range of 71.208.8.48/13 which is too large to handle. Home Lander (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked one, and another started up immediately. So, I range blocked Special:Contributions/71.215.0.0/16 for 31 hours. That won't get the 71.208 IP, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)