Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 1 July 2017

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks

Summary: Over a year after I last interacted with him, Wwallacee today used the opportunity of an unprovoked attack on Apollo The Logician to label him and me as a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Misplaced Pages editing force". I asked him to withdraw the attack, but he posted to the same page without responding.
Background: In April last year, Wwallacee took exception to an innocuous edit of mine to an article he was editing, and posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". This discussion at ANI followed which led to him being blocked. Far from being deterred, two weeks later he opened this thread at ANI with a 4,000-word essay in which he went through a huge number of my edits on articles and talk pages that had nothing to do with him, claiming that they were disruptive. In both discussions, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. The failure to close that second discussion without any admonition to Wwallaccee led me to withdraw from Misplaced Pages for several months. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I didn't interact in any way with him again, he continued with his attacks: this, after the second ANI discussion had been archived and I had retired (notice that comments at ANI were "attacks against me by Scolaire's supporters, whom he must have contacted outside of Misplaced Pages somehow"), this in November ("Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior"), and now the "highly political but loutish element" comment today.
Just to re-iterate, apart from a couple of edits on "his" article – which were in no way intended to provoke him – and the ensuing drama, Wwallacee and I have no history whatever. The reasoning behind this persistant campaign baffles me.
I am asking for Wwallacee to be indefinitely blocked unless or until he acknowledges that what he is doing is contrary to WP:NPA, and promises never to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the threads linked above, I really don't think Wwallacee is ever going to comprehend that his conduct needs to change. His strategy is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, all while accusing Scolaire of doing precisely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In favor of a one-way IBAN? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This complaint appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. i think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the evidence presented in the complaint? Wwallacee has some very problematic editing habits and it is time to address them. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of the case history, but this has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know about the case history, you probably shouldn't be so dismissive of Scolaire's complaint. It's not a good look for an inexperienced editor to tell an experienced editor to grow tougher skin, especially when you haven't really reviewed the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I can handle my own look. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the only action Wwallacee is accused of that hasn't previously been adjudicated here is editing his own talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't review the case, but you did give a far more experienced editor some condescending advice. And let's not use a strawman to distort Scolaire's complaint. It's not a simple matter of Wwallacee editing his own talk page. It's a matter of Wwallacee using his own talk page as a device for attacking another editor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To put it even more bluntly, this board is for editors to seek assistance from admins and experienced editors, which you are obviously not. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am belatedly joining this discussion, having only become aware of the complaint today.

I agree with Power~enwiki that Scolaire's complaint concerns only a reference to himself on my own talk page. Moreover, the language Scolaire objects to does not even directly concern him.

The context here is that a constructive edit by User CanK9 to the page Francis Sheehy-Skeffington had been reverted without reason by another editor named Apollo The Logician. CanK9 then wrote to me on my talk page to ask me to intervene, as I had a prior history of editing the Francis Sheehy-Skeffington page, and his own edit had altered something I myself had inserted. I looked over the page history, found I agreed with CanK9's new edit, and reinstated his change using a more diplomatic language. I replied to CanK9's message on my talk page with some reflections as to why his constructive edit had been reverted. In my reflection I wrote that Apollo the Logician's behavior "sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Misplaced Pages editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire." This does not in any way imply that Scolaire is a "loutish element" - it merely states that during my prior controversy with Scolaire I came across such loutish elements.

To be clear, I do not regard Scolaire as a loutish element. I do however regard him as having (at least in the past) wanted to exert an authoritarian role in Irish Misplaced Pages pages. I have provided abundant evidence of this in a previous AN/I complaint against Scolaire.

I feel that Scolaire's message to me, his opening of a new AN/I complaint against me, and his request of an indefinite block against me, constitute threat and harrassment. Rather than discuss this further here, I intend to open a counter-complaint against Scolaire on AN/I. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot just when you were about to get off scot free. Lepricavark (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So what "loutish elements" did you come across "during your prior controversy with Scolaire"? I don't remember you mentioning them at the time. On the contrary, it seemed like everybody else on "Irish Misplaced Pages" was a victim of my behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

IBan Proposal

I am unarchiving this because I think ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Since the problematic behavior is one–sided, and since the community will likely not suffer if Wwallacee is deprived of the ability to continuing commenting on Scolaire, I propose a one–way interaction ban on Wwallacee. Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. All I'm asking is that he not periodically attack me. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Pinging editors who were involved in the previous ANI discussions: Wwallacee, Thewolfchild, JzG, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, OpenFuture, Serialjoepsycho, Onel5969, Edmund Patrick, Hohenloh, Blackmane, TU-nor, Tarage, Power~enwiki. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit dubious about a one way iban. They tend not to have the intended effect and my experience as a fairly regular passerby on ANI has tended to find that one way ibans escalate more than they de-escalate. I'd be more inclined towards a final warning and escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not really au fait with this dispute, but certainly we all know (or should know) that there is no excuse for personal attacks.Hohenloh 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and would add that if the iban is broken it should lead to a block of Wwallacee. It is unacceptable that the kind of harassment displayed towards Scolaire should be allowed to run unchecked, and it is deeply saddening that constructive and productive editors should be driven into retirement through fear of being attacked. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Uni-directional interaction bans are only imposed in exceedingly rare circumstances. I don't pretend to know the details of this situation, but a single comment, a full year after any previous incidents, is not grounds for a one-way interaction ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose ArbCom didn't give me one and my case was exceptional. I don't see any evidence that a two-way ban would probably be gamed by Wwallacee, and even if this evidence were present I would still probably oppose as this actually happens quite a bit when two-way sanctions are put in place because of one-way disruption. The proper way of dealing with this, in my experience, is to place a two-way sanction initially, see if it works, and if the one causing the initial disruption continues, and does so in a manner that implies gaming of the two-way sanction (say, for example, claiming that it was put in place because of two-way disruption), then a one-way sanction can be imposed, and the two way sanction perhaps lifted (if that's what Scolaire wants). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Two-way ban?? But I've literally never interacted with the guy except to protest when he bad-mouths me. Why would you slap a ban a ban on somebody for being attacked? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scolaire: I have to date been subject to four mutual IBANs. Of these, one was imposed by the community because my disputes with Catflap08 (talk · contribs) kept showing up on various noticeboards and people took the easy way out rather than trying to figure out who was right on the substance; the other three were all the result of me requesting a two-way sanction to protect me from harassment. If what you say (I've literally never interacted with the guy...) is true, then an IBAN could only be beneficial to you. I am not proposing you be "slapped" with any kind of ban you don't want. If you don't want a mutual IBAN, that's fine. You can't have a one-way IBAN without trying a two-way IBAN first, though. Them's the rules. I didn't write them, and (believe me) I wish as much as you do that they were different. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My proposal may deserve the opposition it is receiving, but a two–way ban is monstrously ridiculous. We don't ban people for being the target of abuse. Preposterous. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: You either did not read or did not understand my comment. It's not my intention to propose any monstrous or ridiculous sanctions. If Scolaire doesn't believe the disruption is yet at the point where an IBAN is warranted, that's fine. If Scolaire thinks that an IBAN would improve his situation, that's cool too. But we don't make exceptions in unspexceptional cases, and it's difficult to believe that WW, who has made less than 700 edits in the past two years, could have done anything warranting such an extreme exception to the standard rule on IBANs. If you think WW's behaviour warrants any kind of one-way sanction (a TBAN, a block, or some such) then you should propose one of those. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I did read your comment, although I may very well have not fully understood it. It wasn't especially clear. Lepricavark (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose all one-side I-Bans as being prone to being unjust and liable to inflame not calm things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This could all be put to bed if an admin would just put a friendly note on his talk page telling him not to do it any more. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I became aware of this complaint just today, and I have posted my reply to Scolaire's complaint in the section above. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Final warning and escalating blocks per Blackmane due in part at least to the retaliatory thread below. This suggests that Wwallacee is not making a concerted attempt at treating the community with good faith, but is unable to WP:DROPIT. If Wwallaccee voluntarilly removed themselves from Scolaire's proximity, than these sanctions would not be nececssary; but it strikes me that there has been plenty of opportunity for this to happen- and it has not. — O Fortuna 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

O Fortuna, the complaint against me here has to do with a casual mention of Scolaire on my own talk page, in a manner that was not derogatory towards him, and a year after the last interaction with him. My thread below is not a retaliatory thread, but rather an attempt to reframe this incident as an attack on me, by Scolaire, and very much in keeping with his prior pattern of intimidation of other users. It is Scolaire who should be sanctioned for his frivolous use of AN/I as a way to intimidate people. By the way, I had no prior history of any involvement with AN/I prior to my controversy with Scolaire last year, whereas Scolaire has a long history of AN/I complaints both by him and against him. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page comment was not derogatory towards him? I hope you don't seriously expect anyone to believe you. I agree that you are attempting to reframe this incident in a manner that portrays you as a victim. I can't say I'm surprised as this isn't the first time you've used that strategy. And it is hardly surprising that an editor with 21.5K edits (Scolaire) has been to ANI more often than an editor with 1.5K edits (you). Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You think that saying CanK, what you describe in your note to me on my talk page sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Misplaced Pages editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire (my emphasis) in diff is not derogatory? I think I the cluebat has been misplaced. Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I was pinged again on this topic, so I'll !vote. Wwallacee is not helping his cause and may need a formal warning; but I still don't think any IBAN is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think an IBAN is needed here, just escalating blocks if Wwallacee does not stop the harassment of Scolaire - the current one-week block is a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of these developments, I withdraw my proposal for a one-way Iban. Lepricavark (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wwallacee responds with more personal attacks

Wwallacee has now opened a new ANI thread, Harassment by user Scolaire, accusing me of harassment because I complained about his continuing attacks. Some quotes from that thread:

• Scolaire has a prior history of disruptive editing and harassment of other users
• I ask that Scolaire be issued a non-removable warning on his talk page, to the effect that he has been cautioned against threatening, harassing, and authoritarian behavior
• Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are able to learn about his prior history and are empowered to question his authority (emphasis added)
• Scolaire's behavior needs to be flagged so that others are not intimidated by it, as has been the case in the past

All of this is completely untrue. I have no history of disruption, still less harassment or intimidation; I have never in 12 years on WP been cautioned about threatening, harassing, or authoritarian behaviour; and I do not erase criticism, except to delete the blatant personal attacks on multiple talk pages for which Wwallacee was blocked in April last year. Therefore there is no need for "future users to be able to learn about my history" or be "empowered to question my authority". What authority anyway? I'm just an ordinary editor who wants to be left to edit in peace.
What is it going to take for an admin to say "You can't do this. Stop."? Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire, you were totally left to edit in peace. It is you who initiated an attack against me for a frivolous reason. As to the statements I made about your prior history of disruptive editing, harassment of other users, and erasure of criticism, all of that is well documented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwallacee (talk • contribs)

Documented where? In that thread where the other participants agreed that Scolaire was not guilty of wrongdoing? I don't see how that helps your case, mainly because it doesn't. Lepricavark (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: As I gave Wwallacee a final warning to drop the stick yesterday , but he instead chose to repeat the same accusations , I have now blocked him, for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest close. Now that he has been unambiguously told by two admins that he is in the wrong, I am happy for this to be closed. Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TheMagnificentist

Seems that User:TheMagnificentist acts against consensuses changing on his own en mass categories "X music groups" to "X musicians" even in cases where article is about a band/group/musical project. He also removed the content of a number of categories: , , , , +many other, and a lot of related categories becames empty (e.g. Category:English electronic music groups). Thousands of changes done with AWB - and in a number of pages he made by several consecutive edits, replacing by one category at a time; isn't this a bot task? The summary used is misleading ("clean up", ORLY?). This looks to me like an abuse using mass-editing tools.

Sample of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/TheMagnificentist&offset=20170627110319&limit=500&target=TheMagnificentist

Being controversial, their edits should be rollbacked. --XXN, 11:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Notified TheMagnificentist about this discussion. I think this is controversial categorisation as well and should be discussed first before such wide-reaching changes are implemented by AWB or any other automated tool. Ss112 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, he also emptied categories outside of the WP:CFD process and outright blanked them--I have no clue what the purpose would be of that. I thought that he was trying to change instances of "synthpop" to "synth-pop" since the article was moved but no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across one of his edits here when CNBLUE was moved from Category:Electronic rock musical groups to Category:Electronic rock musicians. Not only was the execution messy (the latter is still categorized under a "rock music groups" parent category), it appears these edits were made unilaterally without any prior discussion. I agree that his edits should be reverted and I strongly advise him to suggest any changes to the current category scheme by properly listing them at WP:CFD. ℯxplicit 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was only attempting to combine categories of "X music groups" with "X musicians". I apologize for unilaterally doing this myself without consensus, but it was done per WP:BOLD. I thought it was uncontroversial because many of the categories weren't sorted properly. It was a huge mess and many articles in 'electronic music' had redundant categories. Some had both "X music groups" and "X musicians". I intially planned on cleaning up categories of electronic music because many of its subcategories had little articles so I thought merging them with bigger categories would make things neater. I blanked some of them because they had no pages and I wanted to request speedy after 7 days to have them deleted so that the redundant categories (X groups) wouldn't confuse other editors. I removed or changed categories of "X groups" to "X musicians" per consistency with similar pages.

The edit summary "Clean up" was default and I didn't change it, assuming AWB would update it per my edits. When this ANI report was posted, I wasn't done with the categories yet, which was why the parent categories are still there.

If it is decided that my edits to the categories should be reverted, I am willing to do it myself and undo them all because per guideline, I am responsible for the edits I make via AWB. - TheMagnificentist 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Please make note of this WP:AWBRULES when every time you're using AWB, if you think that categories should be request an speedy deletion, you need to via the WP:TALK page to make the new section first, by discussion an consensus with other editors to make an collaboratively decision on that, and should not be blank it like this in anyway, hopefully you'll acknowledgement on that, regards. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III."
This section was about to be archived without an action taken. I can't understand the indifference to this case.
Bad administrative work... XXN, 10:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Zee money's article creations

Many of Zee money's article creations have issues. For example, Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) does not have many links or sources in it; Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) does not have many sources; and Vasily Flug and Pyotr Lomnovsky have maintenance tags at the top. I thus propose that the user has its autopatrolled right removed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with GeoffreyT2000. Zee money has a habit of creating a large number of unsourced stubs. Quite a few users, including myself, have warned him many times before, to little lasting effect. And I've fixed (and completely rewritten) several of them (such as Zhang Qinqiu, Hu Di, and Qian Zhuangfei), which probably took more effort than starting from nil. His recent creations seem even worse than before, as they are rough machine translations which make no sense. For example, the lead of Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) says: "The character is Kumon. Chinese is a person from the evil County of Xuzhou. My brother is Zhang Hiroshi". And Pang Meng is the same. I believe the user's autopatrolled right should be removed, and they should be forbidden from creating new articles without adequate sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, this is an experienced editor we're talking about here. Yes, the Zhang Bu article is a mess, yes it looks like he did a machine translation from Chinese to English., however, other articles he started, like Maxim Stepanov look great. I don't think his autopatroller status has anything to do with that , but perhaps a note on his page might be in order.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with GeoffreyT2000. I think we need some sort of punishment consequences so that Zee money does more than the minimum on his articles - that is, actually taking the time to find references for his articles, and that the improvements in article creation that he temporarily makes after being warned actually last. By the way, the Maxim Stepanov page was unreferenced at the beginning, too. I've had similar experiences to Zanhe in dealing with this user, as I've fixed some of his articles, like Pyotr Pumpur and 4th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Kges1901 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't do punishment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't, but we also don't give auto-patrolled to editors who are making articles that clearly need attention from reviewers, and being "prolific" is not in and of itself isn't qualifying. Pinging @Schwede66: for their input. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Before we do anything else about autopatrolled, KrakatoaKatie should be given a chance to comment. Schwede66 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I see I granted the user right 18 months ago, but honestly, I don't remember it. If Schwede feels it needs to be removed, I have no objection. Katie 22:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: The version of Maxim Stepanov written by Zee money is completely unsourced (see this). It was Kges1901 who fixed it and made it great. I just found another article Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) which is a machine-translated mess. An experienced editor like Zee money should have learned how to create properly referenced articles by now, especially after receiving so much advice and guidance from other editors over the years. -Zanhe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanhe Kges1901 added in a reference, the rest of the article was fine (yes I know we need references) point is, this article wasn't a mess, the chinese articles are. Once again, this isn't anything to do with his autopatroller rights. Still Opposed
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: According to WP:Autopatrolled: "This permission is granted only to accounts that have extensively demonstrated their knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines". After numerous gentle reminders from other users, Zee money has not demonstrated the ability to follow WP:Verifiability, one of the core content policies. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as autopatrolled goes, it's not a "behavioral issue" per se; it's not a "punishment" at all. It's a procedural issue of whether these articles get some proper maintenance and integration into the project that will allow them to stand alone in the meantime, be connected to interested editors in the long run, and offer a feedback channel to the editor themselves to help them make better new articles in the future. It is, at its heart, a way to make sure we make better articles and we make better editors. There's no prejudice toward whether the right can be granted again in the future, but right now it doesn't seem like it's helping either the project or the person. TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, however, since the problem wasn't anything to do with his autopatroller status, removing it would be punative and that's also not right. Yes, the articles mentioned at the top of this report are junk, so a short block may be in order, this would prevent further junk articles, but take away the autopatrolled status , that does nothing to stop the problem.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I... don't think you understand the purpose of autopatrolled. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Also note that autopatrolled is according to the WP guideline for "prolific creators of clean articles", but the unreferenced stubs that Zee Money is creating half the time are not "clean" articles. If the autopatrolled right was taken away the articles would have to go through the new page patrol review process, where they could at least be filtered.Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no argument that starts as "these articles are junk, but they should not be patrolled" that makes any sense whatsoever. I appreciate that Kosh is trying to play the devil's advocate here, but the right needs to be removed, and it needs to be removed basically now, and it would make everyone sleep better at night if Katie were the one to do it. Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

After investigating further, I agree that at least the last few articles created are nonsensical and would require huge cleanup at least and deletion at worst. Accordingly, I have removed the autopatrolled user right. Katie 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I believe Zee money should also be banned from creating new articles without reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. That's what WP:NPP is for. If you feel that strongly about it, you're welcome to join us. We can use all the help we can get. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I've patrolled thousands of new pages myself, and that's how I got to know about Zee money's creations. It's perfectly understandable for new editors to make mistakes, but not for an experienced user who refuses to follow the WP:V policy year after year, after numerous editors have tried to point him to the right way (see User talk:Zee money). -Zanhe (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zee money creates many articles with dubious notability. He has created 2009 articles.Some articles have notability. Lack of sources is a major problem. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, when an editor has made 2,009 articles, of which nine have been deleted, that's a pretty strong argument against curtailing their article creation. Then again, about half of that has been done since they were granted autopatrolled, so that may skew the numbers a bit.

I think it would resolve a lot of the problem here if Zee money would... acknowledge that this thread exists. Their conspicuous absence here, combined with a less than stellar history of being responsive on their talk page gives me more pause than anything. Machine translation is right out, and needs to stop. But in a lot of the situations, it looks like the biggest problem is that they're just not bringing over the foreign language sources when they translate into English. The most painless thing to do here would simply be for them to just agree to bring sources over in articles that they translate. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not the problem, but verifiability is. Almost all articles Zee money created are notable, but he just don't bother to add sources, after repeated prodding over the years. And the situation is only getting worse, now that the user is resorting to machine translation to create new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Timothyjosephwood, I"m looking at what will stop the problem. As I said, I'm familiar with the autopatrolled right.
The problem here - Zee money is creating junk articles
The solution being requested - Remove his autopatrolled rights

The problem with that - Per Autopatroller The autopatrolled right will not help you create articles. , so removing his autopatroller right does nothing to stop him from creating new junky articles. It's not a solution, merely a punative strike, if you want him to stop creating junk articles, you could
a.) block him for a determined length of time
b.) place a discretionary sanction on him from creating new articles or
c.) block indef
Any of these things address the problem, removing autopatroller right doesn't. The only thing autopatroller right does is mark an article that he's created as "patrolled" and push it to the new articles pages. Sorry, this is a bad move all the way in that it doesn't solve the problem.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef? Sure. I guess you could indef, or I guess you could... I dunno... maybe give them a barnstar or something. I've gone through about 50 of their articles at this point, and... well... I haven't started any AfDs today if that's any indication. In fact they're basically auto-notable because they either blow WP:SOLDIER out of the water, or they're divisional level military units. They pretty much all need tagging for cleanup and stub sorting, which is exactly the kinds of things NPP can do, and is why they shouldn't have autopatrolled.

The recent machine translation articles are right out, and rightfully should probably be deleted if they can't be stubified. There's solid long standing consensus that machine translation is worse than nothing. But if large unsourced machine translations are a persistent pattern then I've not gotten there yet, because what I'm seeing are pretty much legitimate stubs on clearly notable topics that rightfully should be created and linked to their more developed counterparts on non-English projects for translation. 14th Landwehr Division (German Empire), which is what I happen to currently have open in another tab isn't a "junk article"; it's a stub, and if you took it to AfD you'd probably get laughed out of town.

NPP will see any new articles created and address them as needed. But if you want to indef someone because around 0.0044 percent of the articles they've created deserve to be deleted, then you need to get the hell away from drama boards and go build an encyclopedia somewhere. (Indef.. christ almighty.. the user has almost as many articles created as you have mainspace edits...) TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in here in support of Timothyjosephwood's position. Autopatrolled is not a reward or a hat to be collected; many experienced and respected editors don't reach the necessary number of newly created articles, or attract an admin's attention for doing so ... until they pass RfA, it's one of the rights bundled into adminship. It's intended to reduce the work at NPP. (I've been told some NPPers still check my new articles anyway, because I'm so eclectic. And I don't mind because I could always slip and make a mistake on one that needs fixing.) Zee money has been creating articles that need checking; I'm particularly concerned by the mention of machine translations, which need to be reported at PNT as soon as possible before some poor reader tries to consult them (and which impose particularly lengthy clean-up tasks on the community). But the reason we have NPP is that new articles can have all kinds of problems. Apparently that goes for Zee money's work, too, so it shouldn't be automatically marked as not needing checking. @KoshVorlon: It's not a matter of punishment, and it's also not a matter of stopping him. It's a matter of whether the articles need checking, like the vast majority of new articles. However in any case, KrakatoaKatie did go ahead and remove autopatrolled. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

speaking for PNT we do not have any spare capacity and do have a huge backlog, made worse by a diversion of resources to the recent CTX kerfluffle. And Chinese isn't among our strengths. I think we may have a couple of regulars who are zh-1 or zh-2. That's it. So it's not a good problem for us. Withough getting into what I think of the machine translation policy I'll just say that having taken a really deep dive in some bad machine translations I am of the opinion that at least half the problem could be eliminated by better scrutiny of a handful of problem editors. Removing autopatrolled privileges would seem to be a good start in this case. Please keep some eyes out for any future problematic contributions. Zh-->En does not seem to be something that machine translation understands very well yet, at all. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef would be gross overkill. As mentioned above, I believe Zee money should be given a formal warning not to create more articles without adequate sources, and not rely on machine translation when creating new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparent IDLI removal of G5 Speedy Delete request

Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user, WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept . His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".

I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert . He refused . It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.

Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?

(2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.

(3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).

(4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?

(5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.

(6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?

(7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)For what it's worth, in the future, I'd think a removal of the quick-kill tag by an established user looks an awful lot like a substantial edit by others in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• The key thing here, to me, is WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding trivia to multiple articles

Do we need to know how many Facebook followers a professional sports team has per Houndground (talk · contribs)? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes like that. You should discuss the matter with the user on the relevant article talk page or WikiProject talk page, and if that fails to settle the issue, move to the dispute resolution procedures available. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm not going to take this to each individual article talk page. no one is disputing the accuracy of the content, but this is not what Misplaced Pages articles are for. I've brought it here as a user competency issue. Feel free to remove it if you think it's inappropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you should take it to each individual page; as I indicated, it could be discussed at the relevant WikiProject or even just one article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, regardless of the fact that this is the wrong venue, this is pointless and unmaintainable trivia; I've reverted all the examples I can find, and left a warning on the user's page. If you find any more sporting club articles with references to "number of Facebook likes", feel free to remove them as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, a number of this user's edits are completely incompetent (i.e. ). Definitely worth keeping an eye on. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I was initially concerned over the rate of editing. Mass addition at such a rate would IMO be a problem (although they should be asked to stop before being brought to ANI). But looking more closely it's not so simple. Some of their edits are simply adding Facebook follower numbers. Others are updating those numbers (perhaps added by them before, I don't know). Yet other seem to be changing stadium capacities or other figures, generally without sources not that the figures generally have sources. Occasionally they have added not very good sources . (They've generally sourced the follower numbers to the Facebook page albeit sometimes the mobile variant.) Other times they've added various details. While not as concerning as if they were solely adding Facebook follower figures, IMO the speed of editing is a problem considering the questionable quality and they probably should be blocked if they don't slow down after being given a warning. (Which I'll do so.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I forgot . Technically true but it really needs a source and either attribution or explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

One final point, the changing existing Facebook figures got me thinking. I explored this example Karachi United where it seems it was added here by Special:Contributions/Fussbolfan. This editor was never blocked and has not edited since Houndground started but it's still concerning considering there are multiple warnings on their userpage. I've asked for clarification on their connection and mentioned this ANI case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I am very concerned about this editor which clearly shows lack of competency and no attempts to talk. The editor has been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football and editors there have expressed concerns but without any response. Qed237 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, Nil Einne and Qed237 for following up. Admittedly, this was not my preferred venue, but the editor was on a roll and I sought a quick response just to slow them down and revert at least some of the edits, a number of which were made at protected articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This reply: . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what they said there, I've tried to explain again why they need to slow down and also directed them to the teahouse. I've also asked again for clarification on their connection to the old account, as the comment "I only use this account now" seems to imply an old account, but not clearly stating so or which one. The comment suggests perhaps there is hope. Maybe direct mentoring would be particularly beneficial if anyone is willing to volunteer. If not it's on them to read and seek help. Considering how long it took them to say anything in response, it's probably only a faint hope so no major loss either way. (Especially if the other account is them and the timing strongly suggests it is; with only a single comment on talk pages before that I can find discounting a semiprotected edit request.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As a quick update, Houndground has confirmed editing using the previous account and place a declaration on their user page as I suggested so there's IMO not longer any direct concerns about the 2 accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There might no longer be a concern regarding the two account but I am very concerned about the competence. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Houndground once again created bogus article and I am now unfortunately ready to suggest a block. What do you think @331dot, Black Kite, and Nil Einne: who have participated in this discussion? Qed237 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Special goggles needed

Can an admin please compare Assassination threats against Donald Trump with the two previous, deleted versions of the article and let us know if the current article is sufficiently identical either of the previous versions? Many thanks.- MrX 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Mop goggles" ... it's not a thing... but I'm gonna make it a thing. It just rolls off the tongue. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not substantially identical to the two previous deleted versions, and I do not feel it qualifies for G4. Let the AFD play out. Katie 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was just going to say the opposite; it's pretty much the same general thing as the version deleted August 2016 (it is different than the version deleted January 2017). I guess I should type quicker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll let the AfD play out. Thanks all, and EEng for cleaning it up.- MrX 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a disparity I have noticed with administrators - who tend to fall into one of two camps. Either the article has to be identical, wording, sources etc, to qualify - or some admins take the approach if it covers the same areas even with different wording, its substantially identical regardless of the differences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There's definitely a judgement call to be made with G4. It's particularly tricky because the person nominating it can't see previous revisions, so declining it because it's still rubbish but not substantially identical to a previously-deleted version can be seen as time-wasting WP:BUREAU. It seems pretty clear to me that Assassination threats against Donald Trump falls into this category - at least in the state it's currently in. It has substantially different content to the deleted version, even if most of the new content is actually about something else. In that case, it's up to the community to decide deletion, not an individual admin. There's always the temptation, when you see a really terrible article tagged for speedy deletion that doesn't quite fit the criteria, to think, "It's never going to get through AfD - why waste the community's time? We'll just stretch the boundary of G4 (or whatever it is) and no-one will ever know." In my view, it's a temptation to be resisted. For those who can't see the deleted version - in both versions, the only discussion of actual threats is an un-sourced first sentence, and even then it doesn't mention any specifically. The latest deleted version then goes on to discuss security arrangements, particularly during Trump's candidacy, while the new version discusses an attempted assassination (however ham-fisted it might have been). GoldenRing (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: Before suggesting that people (like me) who think that G4 applies in this case are trying to sneakily delete it out of process, you should compare the version that was there when the current (3rd) AFD was started to the version that was deleted after the 1st AFD. Your description of what the deleted article looked like only applies to what was deleted after the 2nd AFD. While some of the names of the particular people accused of making "threats" are different, the construction of the 1st AFD'd article and this 3rd AFD'd article are essentially the same, and this article has exactly the same problems that were already identified in the first AFD. I don't care too much if another admin thinks they weren't quite similar enough for G4; as OID says, opinions differ on how close they have to be, and it looks like it's about to get redirected and salted anyway. I certainly don't question Katie's competence or motivation. But your incomplete description of the deleted version, and your assumption that I either don't understand the purpose of G4 or (worse) I'm trying to usurp the community's decision-making processes, are not appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And I didn't think Floq was questioning my competence/motivation (competence, I have some; motivation, I have none here). Likewise, I didn't take GoldenRing's comment to be directed at anyone personally. I read it as a general comment about the differences of opinion that administrators sometimes have. I tend to take a relatively hard line on G4 (and on CSD in general) because we have other processes available for deletion, despite the anguished cries I'm hearing in my ears as I type this from those who get frustrated by those processes. Other admins are more like Floq, and believe that a more general approach is sufficient. Still others are more letter-of-the-law than I am. We're not all the same, and that's a marvelous thing, for if we weren't, we'd have nothing to discuss. :-) Katie 00:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • And I am sorry for causing offence. I did not intend my comment as criticism of anyone but myself; it was a reflection on my own mixed motives, not yours. I oughtn't to have connected it with the specifics of this case, and certainly not without first checking all the deleted revisions. GoldenRing (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dyke March

This article's subject has been a controversial subject in the news lately, and so I'd really appreciate a couple more sets of eyes. Thanks as usual, GAB 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not for the faint of heart. EEng 03:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not written in a very encyclopedic way, but what other issues do you have with it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a polemical history, with Mideast nonsense mixed in as well. EEng 10:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's "not for the faint of heart" only if poorly written articles give you chest pains. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to get in the middle of a group of lesbians arguing about whether Zionism is racism, be my guest. EEng 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The only discussion one should engage in is whether or not it is WP:UNDUE, the rest is WP:NOTFORUM. I've deleted the excessive blockquotes from non-notable sources and have the thing on my watchlist. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it, too. Yintan  11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

More eyes might be needed before I run into 3RR. Just saying. Yintan  18:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your last actions in that article were firmly covered by WP:3RRNO as far as I can ascertain. No worries there. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was trimmed of all it's unsourced OR etc., it would look like this. — fortunavelut luna 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a lot of work. Yintan  12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. So why did you revert yourself? Kleuske (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Here are some of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of this.

• 83.31.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Annual rangeblock is needed because of: special:contribs/83.31.1.46 special:contribs/83.31.13.56 special:contribs/83.31.43.125 special:contribs/83.31.45.80 special:contribs/83.31.75.34 special:contribs/83.31.80.210 current monthly pattern, it is the same as w:m:Global block of Orange ranges (2015). I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.

Favonian seems to have some experience with this IP range. Should we range block it? It does seem troublesome. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article

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

Hi there! The comment below was placed below on June 25 to the help desk by 101.182.141.22; however, as this is an edit war, I have reposted the query below for admin follow-up. Thanks! Daylen (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Original message I have voiced my concerns on the Talk page of this article - but an edit war is on! User talk:Esemgee is an editor who will not accept the various details - published in respected books (recent and historic) and in many verifiable citations - concerning the Lupton family, who feature on this page. Any suggestions? This warring has been going on for some time. See above "verifiability" query too please. Cheers 101.182.141.22 (talk) 3:52 am, 25 June 2017

I've reverted User:Softlavender's close; it seems to me pointless bureaucracy to redirect someone to another noticeboard. Yes, technically ANEW might have been the best place for this, but since it's here, let's deal with it here.

@101.182.141.22: You're going to have to help us out a bit more here. I've looked back through some of User:Esemgee's edits to that page and I'm not seeing anything terribly objectionable. Have I just not looked far enough? The most likely thing I can see is removed refs to the Daily Mail. You may not like it, but the established consensus is that the DM is not a usable source, especially not for BLP's. I may happen to think consensus is just a bit mental on this point, but that's the consensus and until it changes, that's the way it rolls. If there's something specific you'd like us to look at, please post some diffs back here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, ANI does not deal with WP:CONTENTDISPUTES, nor is it a help desk, which is why we point them to the correct venue(s) when content disputes or edit wars are posted here (otherwise, every content dispute or edit war will end up here). Nor can IPs be pinged, nor does the IP even know this discussion is being carried on here. I am going to repeat my close here, as the person who opened this thread (Daylen) appears to lack understanding of how things work:

Daylen, ANI is not the correct venue for content disputes and edit wars. Please report edit-warring at WP:ANEW after WP:WARNing the user on their talkpage. Please utilize the talkpage of the article, and institute any dispute resolution practices desired, for content disputes. Please direct any interested editors to the WP:TEAHOUSE for further assistance if they need it. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac

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

Following the latest bout of nonsense stemming from an unnecessary almost-edit-war at this MFD page, I am proposing an IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. For some reason they cannot seem to get along. As seen in the above links as well as random sniping at various discussions and this ANI thread, there is some sort of beef between them and they simply cannot agree on anything.

I know the above ANI closed as no consensus for an IBAN, but given the most recent activities I believe it's necessary to avoid pointless infighting on both sides. SmokeyJoe apparently has more/better diffs available to illustrate the issue, hence the ping and slightly-less-than-stellar diffs (my apologies).

I propose the following:

Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions. In addition, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).

As a note regarding point #5 the additional exemption - this is because I noticed that both spend a fair amount of time in the XFD spaces, and completely prohibiting interaction on an XFD page could be more disruptive than useful.

Also, it should be a fairly obvious request, but I expect Godsy and Legacy to keep their interactions to a minimum in this thread to avoid needless back-and-forth, barring gross misbehaviour. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Other relevant diffs as they pop up

• this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread

Support

• Support as proposer. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. None of the above prevents either from working with drafts or productively contributing to MfD discussion. These two editors have quite oblique perspectives and approaches, but both are valuable to draft page management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  I agree to positive sentiment towards both editors separately, and this is not in anyway about "punishment".
  I would add a ban for either to close, or perform any administrative function, on any MfD initiated by the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support not as any sort of punishment, but to stop the fighting. Pretty much every year, there's been a "fight of the season" of some sort where a pair of editors, or more, get all riled up about something and then it's blow by blow on ANI for weeks if not months on end. Usually over some petty thing. This is analogous to bystanders stepping in to stop two people fighting on the streets. The bystanders aren't there to punish anyone, just trying to stop the fighting. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have positive sentiment towards these editors separately, but this bickering has gone on long enough. The basic outline here is sound; I suspect there might be minor changes requested and support any changes that Godsy, Legacypac, and Primefac agree on. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes please. Guys, contrary to both your beliefs, you're not each others' worst enemies; you're your own. This is in both of your best interests. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I do my best to stay away from the ANI dramahz, and also generally stay out of draft space unless it involves copyvios or building articles on 17th century things before moving them to mainspace, but even I've noticed the constant back and forth going on between these editors. Its a mini-feud (maybe a full feud). Support this topic ban to prevent further disruption to Misplaced Pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two-way ban, immediately if not sooner. Also strongly support adding a restriction that prohibits them both from editing each other's comments for any reason, indentation issues or not. I also propose modifying restriction 3 from simple prohibition on reversion to some kind of restriction that fully prohibits both of them from editing the any article the other one last edited, or less strictly, prohibiting cosmetic edits to articles the other one last edited, if either of those is feasible. Commenting at XfDs or other discussions would be exempt obviously, I'm talking about going to an article and making a little tweak just so it shows up. Those little "I-see-you" edits were a major cause of the last ANI blowup and I don't see this dispute burning out unless something gets done about that. Edited to add: I also support SmokeyJoe's proposal for no closing of the other's XfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to stipulate that; that is an obvious part of any WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Struck some parts of my comment in favor of Cryptic's "broadly construed" wording way below. Being specific does invite gaming; "broadly construed" is much better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Who cares which one is correct—what is needed is for the posturing and disruption to stop. If there really is a problem with Legacypac's work, someone other than Godsy will notice. Just stop, indefinitely, subject to the usual appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - With apologies to both editors, it seems to me that things have gotten to the point where this is the only reasonable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Even then, it probably won't end, but at least the B.S. comes with consequences. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: with the proposed prohibitions implemented, I dont see any loss to either of the editors. With the restrictions, they should move on. That will certainly further improve their editing, and it will also put an end to such feuds, and conserve time of other editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Net benefit. -FASTILY 05:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Involved Editor Comment in Support I just became aware of this thread 2 minutes ago. I've stated my concerns with Godsy's behavior in the last ANi and will not repeat myself. Since then he has wholesale rejected that he has harassed me or that the Block he received was justified. (many diffs available, start on his talk page). I perceived the community and Admins were unwilling to protect me from someone who has made it a personal mission to make my time on Misplaced Pages miserable for over a year. Given complaining about Godsy behavior brought no resolution, I decided to deal with his activity well within the bounds of what he defined as acceptable behavior. To the extent that has has offended anyone, I apologize. I should be a bigger person than that. I appreciate User:Primefac bringing this ANi for action and wholeheartedly endorse an IBAN. I'd like nothing better then to edit in peace and this is a path forward that accomplishes that. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support There seems to be an obsession on the part of both editors to meddle in each other's business. This seems like an unfortunate but needed outcome. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support No doubt one of them will go out via suicide by cop. Lugnuts 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Godsy's inability to drop the stick has convinced me that this is necessary. The community cannot waste any more time on this. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Legacypac agrees, judging by his comment above, and unfortunately this appears to be the only way to stop Godsy. It's a pity it had to come to this but I can't say I'm surprised. Yintan  07:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, this dispute has wasted enough volunteer time, spreading to WP:REFUND and WP:MFD. It seems clear that these two won't stop needling each other, so someone needs to step in and put a stop to it. Lankiveil 08:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
• Support and admonish Godsy for the canvassing that appeared on my talk page. Nick (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Godsy, I could hardly be said to be a partisan on their behalf, and they still summoned me. I think this was less a case of "canvassing" than it was wanting to get broad input, although that does seem to have backfired from what I think they were expecting. Lankiveil 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
    • I agree considering that there was discussing of an iban only about a month ago, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with notifying everyone who participated with a neutral message. They probably should have said something before doing so or let someone else handle it but meh, it's not worth worrying about. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. They're almost as bad as each other (though I see more intransigence on the part of Godsy), and this horrendous timesink needs to stop. (updated) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support much as I hate to say it, a Iban appears necessary since Godsy won't just voluntarily leave Legacypac alone. That being said, I unequivocally disagree with Legacypac about the original block Godsy received. It was hasty and improper, and I suspect that block contributed to the issue by making Godsy feel that Legacypac was trying to intimidate him into changing his editing habits. Lepricavark (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I opposed the one way iban in the recent discussion thinking the draft ban may solve things. I was seriously wrong. I initially thought this was about the Draft:Medieval jobs MFD which as I said at the time was silly on all sides but wasn't quite enough for me to change my mind especially since Godsy tends to be seen as the worse offender but their behaviour there wasn't quite that bad. But seeing this nonsense just a few days later is enough to convince me. And frankly I think I should have realised this would happen since their interaction areas and history are too wide to avoid it although I think a two way is probably better than the previous one way anyway. (Even if Godsy is more often the initiator, it does seem LegacyPac responds too much and too severely such that I'm not sure a one way would work properly. And LegacyPac to their credit does agree to the iban unlike Godsy.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Just wanted to note I support the rewording. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, provided that there is some venue where they can report violations of this IBAN on each other's part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with Od Mishehu's proviso, and I would even go further to allow an appeal to an impartial administrator for both sides to raise concerns by the other editor. Errors in[REDACTED] do need to be fixes, and while I'd prefer if both editors did 100% disengage from each other, the oversight of your greatest critic can ensure that we are upholding our purpose in making the encyclopedia better. I have very few doubts Legacypac will disengage, but I would carve out this further exception to give Godsy an opportunity in which to demonstrate what they care about more: Being "right" or improving the encyclopedia. I think the next stop on the restriction train is a limited cban as their efforts have (in recent memory) been a significant net negative to the entire project. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not work in the spaces that these editors work in, and I actively avoid ANI; and yet I'm still aware that this dispute is wasting the community's time. I'd say this is overdue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I suppose we can't send them to their rooms without supper too? All joking aside, this is just a waste of time for too many editors. If two editors can't avoid causing drama about each other, then we have to step in and stop the disruption. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed. This reimagining of Hell in the Pacific needs to stop. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption needs to stop. —MRD2014 14:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough. This is taking way too much time, in way too many areas, for way too many editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support This should have been proposed last time rather than the ill thought out one way I-ban on Godsy. Misplaced Pages is a big place. Find something else to do. If something egregious happens, someone else will no doubt spot it. AniMate 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I supported the one-way IBAN before. Godsy needs to walk away from MfD, and draftspace more generally, because the whole purpose at this point seems to be a campaign to stop LegacyPac's efforts to address stale drafts. Unfortunately, it seems that Godsy took the failure of consensus to emerge in the one-way IBAN discussion as an affirmative authorization of his continuing war against LegacyPac. I don't think LegacyPac has done anything particularly egregious with respect to Godsy, but if it'll take a two-way IBAN to get any sort of relief, then I will support it. I agree with the sentiment above, and have no doubts that LegacyPac will obey the letter and spirit of this restriction. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Simply...enough is enough... —JJB 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support For the record though, I am highly unconvinced this will work and am almost certain that this will end in tears. Godzy's form of Wikihounding is far too subtle to ever directly violate this iban, a technicality will be found. I wholeheartedly agree with SmokeyJoe's comment below- "It reminds me of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away." I personally think that only an ArbCom case will solve this, but the iban is still better than nothing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is superior to an arbcom case, as that would be likely outcome there anyway. It seems that the bickering and stress caused to each other is worse than the original issue that brought it up. One assuming a motivation for another that is untrue and then acting/writing on that does add to productivity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Just, stop this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This has been going on for quite some time and it needs to stop one way or another so hopefully the IBAN will do just that. –Davey2010 01:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose any restriction on Godsy (myself) per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. It has not been demonstrated that I've done anything contrary to policies or guidelines and I've remained civil. Legacypac continues to make personal attacks against me (e.g. here). I started Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn) because they were repeatedly substantially changing a comment I made at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop. I should not be punished for their continued misbehavior. Legacypac has led campaigns against me including Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?. The first led to Misplaced Pages:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where the community came down hard against their positions, the second led to them receiving a boomerang topic ban. The community has never found my actions to be inappropriate. Legacypac's false allegations have already led to me receiving a hasty bad block. This sanction would reward them for unduly disparaging me and causing disruption across Misplaced Pages, and allow them to avoid due scrutiny, by giving them what was basically the goal they stated in their opening post of the second an/i I mentioned which they started against me. Had that not occurred, their egregious moves of inappropriate drafts to the mainspace may not have been brought to light as they were (i.e. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac which passed). If they were creating the inappropriate pages instead of moving them from the userspace of others, the pattern would've probably been noticed long ago, and they'd likely have changed their behavior or be indefinitely blocked right now. That aside, this would create complex conundrums due to the nature of my contributions. Just one example: I commonly close discussions at miscellany for deletion; could I close a discussion which Legacypac started when a page has been speedily deleted?; what if they're just a participant?. It'd even be very hard to simply participate in miscellany for deletion discussions without being able to openly address the nominator's and others rationales. All those questions are problems as they've started at least ~50% of the discussions there over the past few months and participated in others. This would unduly inhibit work I enjoy when I've done nothing inappropriate, while its clearly, explicitly been shown that Legacypac has. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent if it passes: it would encourage users to start conflicts with and attempt to provoke those who they often disagree with and who have demonstrably shown their behavior to be inappropriate in the past in the hope that a two way interaction ban will be issued allowing them to continue their sometimes subtle subversions of process that may otherwise go unnoticed and perhaps just barely get away with other more noticeable inappropriate behavior because one voice whose especially familiar with the history has been drowned out. — Godsy_CONT) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, in my opinion you are merely proving the point (the need for the IBan) by your protestations. You have led just as many, or more, campaigns against Legacypac; in fact your interactions filled up nearly a dozen threads on ANI between mid-March and mid-May 2016. May I remind you that your RfA failed because of your vendetta against Legacypac ? If Legacypac does something amiss, let someone else deal with it. The sky will not fall, and Misplaced Pages will survive. Moreover, the community will be spared the endless drama caused by your pursuit of another user. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, Legacypac is correct that you should not be editing a post after it has been responded to, as you just did here: . Please read WP:REDACT and follow those guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Godsy, the example you mentioned above would indeed be a "huge problem" if you were the only editor capable of closing Legacypac's deletion discussions. Or if you were the only editor capable of participating in one. However... Yintan  07:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, again, do not edit a post after it has been replied to, as you have done yet again here: and here , unless you follow the guidelines at WP:REDACT. The best policy is to post new thoughts or new comments in a separate post at the bottom of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC); edited 08:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Yes, yes, in regard to my comment here you are correct. However, I've followed the rules here to a T for a long time, and learned that doing so offers you no protection. So, on this one occasion, I'm not going to bother following the "best practice" (which is what the guideline calls it, "best" not "mandatory"). — Godsy_CONT) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The mythology of your following the rules here to a T is getting really really old, and your obstinacy and self-justification is why you are accruing sanctions here. At the very least, you need to add ;edited ~~~~~ to the end of your post when you add substantively to your comments, to show the date and time you added new material. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems unnecessary, now that Legacypac is banned from moving articles into mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Given that their interactions appear to encompass a lot more than moving articles (eg, this would not have been prevented by Legacypac's ban from moving articles into mainspace), I'd like to understand how you think that ban can be sufficient? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about those edits which were a failed attempt to point out hypocrisy to an editor who justifies his harassment by claiming he is following policy "to a T". Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate edits by Legacypac, regardless of Godsy's edits, but it appears the choices are

1. Block Legacypac. (Not appropriate just for this thread, but possibly, due to the multiple inappropriate complaints being made by, and appropriate complaints about, Legacypac)
2. Block Godsy (and at least 3 other editors, for consistency)
3. Institute some form of IBAN.

I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Both have valid-sounding complaints about the other, but I am yet to see a complaint worthy of investigation that is not solved by this direct interaction ban. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• I know the current proposal already would prevent them from undoing each other's comments, and this next point would not need to be made under any normal circumstances, but:

please let them be banned from editing each other's comments on talk or discussion pages, for any reason.

Wikilawyering and badgering centered on this particular sensitive spot seems to be to be a huge part of the problem. I can find diffs if necessary, but some of them were posted in the recent AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please make sure you're following general THREAD conventions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think just a 2-way ban on them editing (or reverting) each others' comments on talk or discussion pages would address a big part of this. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel and I gave final warnings to Legacypac about this behavior about a year ago, nearly simultaneously and for the same edit. . I'd have blocked had I seen any of the diffs at Primefac's "latest bout of nonsense" link in isolation, let alone together. I haven't seen Godsy doing the same, just diffs of him restoring his own comments, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. —Cryptic 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't exactly what you're looking for, but Legacy's latest "Godsy is hounding me" ANI included diffs of Godsy performing unwanted formatting changes on Legacy's talk page, possibly on Legacy's own comments there. Then I believe it was Legacy who then edit-warred with Godsy on subject headings in Godsy's talk page. I am too tired to look for the diffs right now, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Fixing formatting is permitted by WP:TPG, even if in this case it was extraordinarily stupid to do so. —Cryptic 04:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it permitted to fix formatting on another user's talk page, after that user has indicated that the editor concerned is not welcome to interact with said talk page? I am not sure on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a "letter of the law" vs. "the spirit of the law" thing. It's technically allowed as in there's no formal rule that absolutely says you can't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not "extraordinarily stupid" behavior, as Cryptic eloquently put it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• The closure history of this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread merit mention and linkage. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks. Added to the list. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• In the last giga-thread, I noted this diff (now deleted) by Godsy as a pure-whitespace diff to a doomed page, likely only to annoy Legacypac. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm concerned about gaming the IBan. They both seem to have an interest in some of the same areas. Historically Godsy has generally been the one hounding or harassing Legacypac (in fact, this cost him his recent RfA ), and while I do not always agree with Legaypac, his reactiveness around Godsy is in many ways a reaction to this longterm predation. I would therefore recommend, if an IBan is implemented, that it be time-restricted to six months. It seems like that should be a long enough time for them both to attain new interests and learn to lay off of each other. But because they appear to edit in some of the same noticeboards (XfDs and so on), I think the issue ultimately needs to go to ArbCom, because at this point it is quite hard to make out who is the aggressor and who is merely reacting to pressure. Perhaps the solution is a 6-month IBan, and if that doesn't resolve things, then ArbCom. They should therefore both be on notice that if this does end up at ArbCom, they are both likely to come away with sanctions that are worse than an IBan. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree. I recognise their unfortunate personality and perspective clash. Neither is well labelled as "the aggressor", they inherently antagonise the other. This iban should be indefinite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well, I would be happy to see it succeed, so we might as well try it. From what I've seen though, including two solid months of endless multiple ANI threads from mid-March to mid-May 2016, it's going to take some brain re-wiring for them to stay away from each other. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Softlavender when I returned to editing after 6 months away largely because of the harassment, I studiously avoided contact with the editor I'd rather forget. He cranked up the harassment. With great happiness I'll be returning to ignoring ... what user what that? I've already forgotten them. I also will not be canvassing editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I believe I've notified everyone that participated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. — Godsy_CONT) 03:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Upon further thought, I believe I've notified everyone who participated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? instead of just that section. — Godsy_CONT) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Case-in-point. Godsy genuinely can't help it. A hard rule is needed. Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other." What does that even mean? How can you "ban" a post? And you can't grandfather in an IBan that does not exist. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The point being made is that if the interaction ban were in place, Godsy's above oppose would breach the iban because it includes gratuitous mentions of the other editor. The "case-in-point" was to say that this discussion illustrates the need for an iban. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know that trying to enumerate everything forbidden is a good idea; that just encourages gaming. I'd certainly consider the whole of Misplaced Pages:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification, when taken in its full context, as breaching any sort of interaction ban, for example. Let's just take a page out of arbcom's book and call the ban "broadly construed". —Cryptic 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Cryptic, the main reason why I enumerated the restrictions is to provide the small exception in point #5. I suppose it could be changed to a generic "broadly construed iban except at MFD" but when you start spelling things out you keep finding exceptions that need mentioning. If there's a point above which is missing and/or needs modification to avoid gaming, I'm all ears. Maybe it should be amended to say "they are broadly ibanned, including:"? Primefac (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I thonk it would be best to go with "broadly construed iban except at MFD, where" followed by a rewording of #5 above. This would explicitly deal with one issue which bothers me in this proposal - if one of them violates the IBAN, the other one needs a place to report it. ANI is generally the place where this happens in normal IBAN cases, but the wording above makes it look like that would be no good here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. Enumerating the aspects of the ban just invites wikilawyering and finding situations the drafter didn't think of. "Banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions and a special exception that they may !vote once on MfD discussions started by the other." Or words to that general effect. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  GoldenRing, I've taken your suggestion and modified the proposal accordingly. Thanks for the input (and to Od Mishehu as well). Primefac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Involved User Comment. I posted the question of how to report a violation to Primefac's talk page. As drafted, there is basically no way to report or enforce against a violation as I can't mention the user anywhere. I will not be looking for a violation, and don't generally check Godsy's edits except as they pop up on my watchlist or he pings me. Sadly, I have near zero confidence the harassment will stop, so the time to consider this is now. How about this:

  Involved User Proposal 1. Perceived violations of the IBAN may be reported by posting diffs on up to three Admin's talk pages of the user's choosing (to prevent Admin shopping but allow for Admins that may be away or unable to consider the matter. An Admin may take the matter to ANi or discuss the matter with the parties. Any further dispute or the imposition of a block will be decided by three Admins - one chosen by each user and a third chosen by those two Admins. No blocks should be made without a reasonable discussion. I'd hate to see a block over an accidental or purely technical violation.

  Involved User Proposal 2. IBAN includes participation in any XfD started by the other user except for an XfD against a page started by, substantially edited by or handled (reviewed/moved) by the other user where that user is expected to explain or defend their editorial decisions. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Legacypac, we ec'd but I didn't get a warning, oddly enough. I think you'll find the updated proposal meets your concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yes thank-you. Following WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX is cleaner and clearer, though I appreciate the thought that you put into drafting the first version. Too bad WP:IBAN does not explicitly prohibit WP:HOUNDING in some of the forms I've been experiencing it. Hopefully in any future case the spirit of IBAN rather then only the letter will be considered. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I was thinking on this. Yes, the perceived hounding is an issue. It reminds my of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away. Godsy fills you watchlist with his name. He did it with the notifications, didn't he? Maybe: "One may not make their first edit to a page within six hours of the other editing that page, unless a third editor edits in between. This does not exclude any forum page." This will stop Godsy following legacypac and making little edits immediately in his wake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That does not solve it SmokeyJoe. The time between edits is not the issue. I've removed the long winded explanation. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

ENOUGH. This was exactly the shit that I didn't want popping up in this discussion. It doesn't matter who started it or how they're doing it or why, it's happening and it's driving everyone nuts, and we don't need to continually rehash it. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, it should go without saying (but sadly I feel it needs to be said) that this IBAN will extend to each user's alternate accounts, if they have any. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I seriously considered whether they are both Ricky, I am completely confident that both are good faith, well-intentioned contributors, just inherently abrasive to the other and with separate interests that unavoidably overlap. But just in case, WP:SOCK is very clear:

"*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.".

The precedent statement:

"3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I was referring to legitimate alternate accounts, of which there are two, one recently created. It's a little BEANSy and I was certainly not intending to assume bad faith, but given how deep this issue seems to go I felt that "the record" should show that there are alternate accounts out there. Primefac (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry I was trying respond to a question. I was not trying to rehash anything and I removed the long winded explanation. I don't have any alternative accounts. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Accept IBAN

the Community has spoken and I willingly accept the IBAN. I already commenced compelely avoiding the other party after this thread was started and this should be my last post on this thread as commenting further would violate the IBAN. Thank-you to the many editors who have expressed support for this solution. If you are in Canada or wish you were... Happy 150th! Legacypac (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Slow edit war over multiple pags

Not sure why User:Rockypedia and User:Synthwave.94 are having the oddest edit war I have seen in a longtime. Seems to be about vertical or horizontal reference style over multiple articles ....as seen here or here Both making sure not the revert 3 times in 24 hours.....gaming the system? Can we get someone to take a look....see if we can get the edit war ended...lock pages involved..or whatever. Not suggesting blocks....just a resolution to this behind the scenes problem that has zero effect for our readers. --Moxy (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll just move the affected refs away using {{reflist|refs=...}} syntax. May or may not end the war. —Guanaco 06:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I think that's all of them. —Guanaco 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help; part of this edit war is over citation style. Anyway, in this post, DrKay already warned them a week ago that they would get blocked if they didn't stop edit warring. Because I'm a pushover, I'll give each yet another warning. And then I'll block them if they continue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here's a synopsis: I added valid sources to three particular pages that are on Synthwave's watchlist (and mine). I happen to use the vertical format of the <ref> style for my cites. Synthwave doesn't like vertical format; he likes horizontal. He made no substantive changes to my cites, but insists on changing the format to horizontal. I reverted those changes and started discussions, per CYCLE. He insisted on continuing to make his changes to the formats, without consensus that his changes were valid. I don't change any editor's cites that are horizontal to vertical format; I only ask for the same courtesy in return, as I often revisit cites that I've added, especially pages on my watchlist. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. I'm happy that an admin has taken action and told both of us "leave it alone" - that's exactly what I've been asking of Synthwave the entire time. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars... /thread. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The revision history for "Money for Nothing" shows that Rockypedia first started adding vertical formatting on 3 February 2016‎, with an edit war ending on 25 March 2016 (after a first discussion). Rockypedia then resumed this behaviour on 20 and 21 October 2016‎, and started making other controversial changes since 4 May 2017‎ (I don't even understand why) and haven't stopped ever since. They also started adding vertical formatting in the articles for "Rock the Casbah" and "99 Luftballons" one week ago. In all cases the changes were not discussed at all (in fact I didn't have any other choice than to explain why these changes were not acceptable and not even discussed in the first place !). I recently started another discussion here, where numerous editors confirmed Rockypedia should NOT use a vertical formatting in articles with a consistent horizontal formatting. In other words, Rockypedia should stop reverting my clean up edits that were intended to restore a consistent citation format in all three articles. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO unless it's specifically excepted, CITEVAR (which does not only apply to the way a page renders, e.g. gathered named refs in the references section vs. as they appear) certainly applies. The point of it is to maintain article stability, but also to resolve these disputes so they don't find their way to ANI. Lame edit war, sure, but dismissing the dispute as such just invites it to recur (and I've seen this dispute in particular come up several times before). What matters is precedent on the page, and edit warring over a preferred wikitext style against that precedent is disruptive. i.e. This sort of dispute is exactly why we have CITEVAR. That said, I appreciate there's some disagreement on the matter, and in this case both editors were guilty of edit warring. So while I don't agree with waving off this sort of dispute as a matter as trivial, it seems resolved enough for the purposes of ANI. Let it continue at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources. — Rhododendrites \\ 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, trivial in the sense that both editors should have let the thing go a long time ago, regardless of which way it went, and yet still trivial enough that they're both still here, when looking at the page histories, anyone who happened across it would have been well within their rights to hand out stern warnings, and any admin would have been too to hand out blocks all around if they'd ignored them. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ardnashee2014 block evasion?

Just looking for some other admin's views. I've come across User:Ardnashee2014 who has been removing references from articles without any commentary. Fine, that can be dealt with. The reason here is I checked their userpage and came across this comment "This is my third Misplaced Pages account as I can't remember the password to my first one and my second was blocked. 'Nuff said. (drops mic)." Should we just be blocking this account for block evasion straight off? Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think people are welcome to a fresh start (assuming they are editing constructively). It's worth running by a checkuser though. -- John Reaves 19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming I found his other account (just searched for his name on user pages), it looks like his blocked account (Ardnashee School and College) was done for a username vio, so they're probably ok. Jauerback/_dude. 20:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the contributions yes they're the same editor. Okay, I'll just keep an eye on them for the reference deletion and see if we can sort that. Their other edits are good, just no summaries (I'll drop them a line) and randomly deleting references. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• User is clearly engaging in rampant vandalism. Removing citations or content without the least bit of explanation. I have just now given them a final warning; if they do it again, I'm all for blocking. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ugh, we have a whole set of them: Education Program:Hanyang University/Audience and Media Strategy (Spring 2017). Some haven't edited yet, but Markx121993 (talk · contribs) is doing the exact same thing as Ardnashee2014 (talk · contribs): massive removal of citations: . I've given him a final warning as well. Piotrus, can you please help deal with this group? I ask because they are from Hanyang University, and your doppelganger account is Hanyangprofessor2, which is on the student list and is editing on the same articles as some of the students. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006

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

• Disneylandlover2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I will going to impose an indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006 and I should ask the SPI clerk or CU for a indef block for a real sockmaster Disneylandlover2006 for this sock pinging NinjaRobotPirate or a Clerk to implement an indefinite block for socking with DobleKaraNumber1Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Disneyworldlover2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please ask Gab to await an admin action at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Disneylandlover2006 for now 66.87.65.139 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for disruption, two sock puppets continued the same disruption. It's kind of typical behavior from younger editors who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. I was kind of hoping that going easy might encourage better behavior. If people think I'm going too easy on a disruptive editor, I could indefinitely block. Or someone else could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and GeneralizationsAreBad: I think an indefinite block is possible to do it and wait for GeneralizationsAreBad to await an administrator action for now. 66.87.65.139 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Disneylandlover2006 back, as they received what was practically a slap on the wrist for sockpuppetry. My question is, however, has Disneylandlover2006 communicated about the block at all, or shown any comprehension about why sockpuppetry's inappropriate? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

177.87.228.37 vandalizing talk pages

IP 177.87.228.37 The comments are pretty disgusting, probably not much to do about it but it is two talk pages that I have seen in the last 15 minutes of so (two comments on mine and two on StevenJ81‎—just a heads up. If it persists semi page protection would be nice just so I don't have to keep deleting them by hand. Seraphim System 01:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate. Home Lander (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist request

Could an administrator please blacklist the images File:Jenni Blaze 385.jpg, File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, File:Sex 5.jpg, and File:Sex 6.jpg which were used for vandalism by an IP, and have no business being used anywhere other than already used locations. Home Lander (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The place to ask is on the blacklist talk page, where admin that are familiar with listing with exceptions are found. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Will do, have done it here before, seemed to take longer over there. Home Lander (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks like a few requests over there (including one simple typing error) actually are still pending from earlier in the month if someone could address them. Home Lander (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem like there's much point over an IP with a handful of edits, unless these images are being used in particular in longish term abuse. There are so many dicks on commons that there are separate categories for low quality images of dicks and regular images of dicks. TimothyJosephWood 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New editor/sock redirecting/blanking dozens of articles without consensus or AFD

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

Timothy S1 (talk · contribs) is a new editor with less than 300 edits, and he is redirecting or blanking dozens of articles without consensus, rationale, AfD or WP:MERGEPROP. Can someone please help me revert all of these actions, and can an admin take action if he does not stop? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There was an editor, 118 alex, who was recently just blocked, as in literally this week, for some shenanigans on similar articles. Looks a bit ducky to me. Blackmane (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a definite possibility that this is the same editor (118 alex), who by the way had already created several now-blocked sockpuppets that included the name "alex". Someone on the previous ANI thread about "alex" mentioned that the same socking user was interfering in the articles Timothy S1 is now blanking/redirecting, so that's another confirmation that this is probably a sock. The main thing is stopping him now though; whether that's a CU block or a DE block. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he is now attacking Davey2010 (the target of 118 alex's repeated racist rants) is further strong proof that this is the same user: . -- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning: ; an admin will have to take it from here. We also need a mass reversion. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Gonna go ahead and indef, as well as mass rollback. What a mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Weirdly some of his edits are not terrible, some are removing stuff like teacher lists from schools. So I'm going to leave those and comb through the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC! Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooookay I think I got the majority of the obviously sketchy edits, mainly the huge content removals and the redirecting. If there's anything I missed that should be gotten, let me know, otherwise I think that's it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. There is some sort of odd new message on User talk:Davey2010 that bears looking at, though it could be bogus/trolling/IP-socking. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume either me or Davey2010 will be getting some email presents. Who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned!, I thought it was weird they were redirecting everything but thought they were just a random Singapore person who wanted everything saved & didnt think anything of it, To be honest I thought they were a sock of the other Timothy person .... Can't remember the username but they edited singapore articles too...., Well they certainly fooled me that's for sure!. –Davey2010 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say but thanks Softlavender & Premeditated Chaos for reporting and blocking!, No doubt they'll be back tho.... Ah well thanks both, –Davey2010 13:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary

After my last comment on the matter, I was done and ready to move on; however, they've now accused IJBall and myself of being sockpuppets of each other. With no evidence to back up their claims, they are making personal attacks, and that is simply not tolerable. I've never interacted with this user until they showed up to IJBall's talk page in a negative manner not assuming good faith, and based on their response to that, they think it's okay to automatically assume bad faith. From what I've seen, however, they have serious battleground behavior, and if anyone disagrees with them, they basically get all hostile toward them on top of assuming bad faith. This is not the kind of user Misplaced Pages should have, and they need to change their behavior. As IJBall seems to have interacted with them more, he'll be able to provide some more background. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Amaury, please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled, or someone got their feathers ruffled and took it out on you or someone else. If you come here, you need to make a cogent case with a sufficient number of diffs proving a lengthy pattern, and your own behavior will be looked at as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive-aggressive. I provided a link to a discussion where this stems from above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Misplaced Pages; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided a link to a discussion containing everything without having to sift through links rather than individual diffs as that's just as useful. Sorry that didn't seem to meet your standards. In any case, , , and . Hostility, condescending, and personal attacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Re "List of Wynonna Earp episodes" discussion in editor's talk page:

I contacted an editor in his talk page regarding deletions of sourced content. You injected yourself into the discussion between us. This was not a discussion in an article's talk page. You misused WP:AGF, WP:COMMONSENSE , WP:LETITGO, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and WP:BATTLEGROUND as weapons, attempting to intimidate me. What you should have done is mind your own business and stayed out of it. And yes, I do think the 'knight in shining armour' persona is suspect. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan  08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why IJBall insists on having a citation in the column header when the episodes are already cited in the column's cells. If there's a WP:MOS reason for this I'm not aware of it. Now there are citations in both, which seems like overkill to me, especially since it's the same source. Also, all other cites in the article are in the cells, where cites in tables usually are, and not in the headers. Amaury's accusation that Pyxis Solitary has a battleground mentality is far fetched in my humble opinion. Pyxis Solitary's initial messages are polite and to the point. That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far. But so is taking this to AN/I. Again, all in my humble opinion. For what that is worth. Kind regards, Yintan  09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, if you keep making personal attacks by making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, you can easily find yourself in trouble, and I suggest you cool it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yintan, I don't know if you just skimmed the discussion on IJBall's talk page linked to above, but you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't the MOS, the issue is WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article. Pyxis then re-added the air date with a source and came to IJBall's talk page to complain because IJBall should have just attached the source himself rather than removing it and accused IJBall of unproductive editing. That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN above, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and read other editors' minds and take care of what they should have done by finding and attaching the sources themselves, it is the responsibility of the editors who add the information to properly source it if they don't want it removed, provided it's relevant for the article, of course. And yes, currently, the episodes are sourced in the cells; however, when there's an episode guide available, it's much more beneficial to make the episode guide a column source rather than individually source each episode. Although that's beside the point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

On another note, it's worth noting that IJBall is currently busy with something and is in an area where his access to Internet is spotty. If an administrator really needs to get a hold of him, they should email him as he may or may not respond to this discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so much missing the point as trying to say I honestly don't see what all your fuss is about. And trust me, I've read that Talk page. A few times even because at first I thought I was missing something MAJOR. I didn't. It's just about the citing of a source and one Talk page message that isn't even unpolite or threatening. I think your advice to Pyxis Solitary to cool it is fine but I suggest you and IJBall cool it too. "Battleground"? "Personal attacks"? Come on. Or take this to WP:3 perhaps? Yintan  18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article." Nope. The air date was sourced. The source was attached to the title of the episodes. The first time, he deleted ALL the source because in his opinion:

• "a source better than Epguides is needed".

Where in MOS:TV does it say that epguides is not an acceptable source for episode titles and air dates? Misplaced Pages also has a {{epguides}} template for it.

The second time he deleted the air date because the source (Variety) was not next to the air date -- but it was attached to the episode title. Are episode tables now going to contain TWO identical citations? One for the episode title and one for the air date?

Amaury, do Misplaced Pages and its editors a favor by not twisting facts to support your accusations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:

• "showing up here with an unnecessary attitude", "You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression", "Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here", "It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain"

... exactly who was the one that resorted to "battleground behavior", "personal attacks", and "hostil"?

So what do Admins do with an editor that tries to use an ANI against another editor with false accusations of "serious battleground behavior", and slanders that editor as "not the kind of user Misplaced Pages should have"? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

94.197.120.78

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

Could someone please block 94.197.120.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's another sock puppet of Qais13 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis high speed editing

User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. Editor User:Justlettersandnumbers has complained on his talk page multiple times, yet this action continues. The most recent conversation is here: Special:PermaLink/788254672#ISBN_replacement. This is despite knowing this is a task better suited to be run under a bot account (and is open for discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54) that will specifically avoid flooding recent changes and watchlists. The edits appear to be designed to just avoid the restrictions in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis - so I'm bringing this here for administrator and community review instead of the AE. I think I'm too close to this issues personally so will not be making any blocks/etc and would appreciate review by uninvovled parties. Thank you, — xaosflux 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the things I am doing right now are not even done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Example. I fixed Magic Bot's edit. No bots fix hidden tabs right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux what is my speed exactly. Do you have numbers? Whch restriction is realated to that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

General disruptive editing by flooding watchlists and recent changes by making insubstative (in my opinion) edits without a bot flag. As I said in the introduction above, I'm a bit too close to this and am leaving it open that these edits are not consider insubstantive by a consensus of others and that the rate is acceptable. — xaosflux 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Check my edit rate again please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux See that in most of my today's edits Magic Bot failed to fix the ISBN error and that PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago. Moreover, Yobot would not ix those case neither since I ve been tild to use the same regex with Magic Bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Note also that there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago exactly because they can't fix the rest. The cases contain hidden tabs or the ISBNs are in places not fixed by the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux The main complain was not about the high speed but it is worth to do something like that by normal account since it is done by bots. My arguments are: a) ot all of these edits are done by bots. b) It enables finding edge cases (e.g. example of ISBN fix not related to the bot task) c) There is a workaround for watchlists d) If Yobot does it with general fixes it could save me time by checking edits instead of making them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, I just think that it is not appropriate. Thus leaving this open for some feedback. I would like to request you cease this activity for at least 12 hours unless this discussion shows significant support for your continued activity prior to then. — xaosflux 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux OK. 63 pages left. You can ask the bot owners to modify their code to fix thee 63 pages if it is worth. Opening an ANI for that and relating to the ArbCom case it is intresting though. Recall, that I have not worked on fixing ISBNs for 4 days waiting for the BRFA approval. Today, I worked mainly with pages unfixed by the bots. So I did not exactly resume the past work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, your edit rate is 13 edits per minute. If you're not running an unauthorised bot on your main account, you should consider entering the World's Fastest Typist contest. ‑ Iridescent 12:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent I use AWB to load the pages which provides list of pages. After saving it proceeds to the next page. Please check WP:AWB for Misplaced Pages's most popular tool. Thse edit rates were neever a problem afaik. Recall this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

At 13 edits a minute (4.6 seconds a page), an editor is not checking the page to examine their edits before pressing "save changes". We're back here again, only six days (?) after the last ANI episode - this really needs to stop. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 I am checking only the changes not the entire page. Are you going to ask the same from every AWB editor? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I have a lot of follow up edits. This is exactly because I check the page. Not many AWB editors can claim this. What was the last ANI about? Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have indeed asked Magioladitis on several occasions to stop making these edits, at the very least until the two bots that are working on the same (important) change have finished their respective runs. Unlike bot edits, which can be hidden with a single click, these semi-automated are swamping my watchlist. Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don't feel that I should be obliged to install a script just to hide the edits of one user. I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia; I'm perplexed and disappointed at his disregard of the concerns of others when he does so without consideration. It'd probably be good if we had a guideline to prevent editors from using semi-automated tools to make edits that have already been approved as automated bot tasks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers PrimeBOT has not edited for 4 days and the last edits I did were not done by Magic Bots neither. Still, I provided some workarounds to avoid any disruption. One was to get approval to use my bot account (I could even use this in manual mode if asked) and the second was the script trick that was recently advertised as a solution by others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note once more that I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked, I seeked bot approval and that today I mainly fixed pages that remained unfixed by the bots. Another example. I also did a bunch of follow-up edits to improve exisitng fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that thanks to me and not only me this list was reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The problem I see here is that the BAG and other bot-related admins are so involved in dealing with Magioladitis' nonsense that none of us can feasibly take action without appearing involved. Mag is blatantly throwing policy in our faces, toeing the line of his ArbCom restrictions and ignoring simple requests from other editors to just slow down a bit. He is constantly pestering BAG to get approval for tasks that aren't vital (that link is to his ISBN fixer, which as stated is exactly the same as the others). At some point there won't be any uninvolved admins who are familiar with the case to actually do something about it.

I'm not saying that Magioladitis doesn't do good work (he does), I'm just saying that we're getting to a point where he's barely listening to anyone, barely following the rules, and annoying many people in the process. I obviously can't speak for the rest of the bot-running admins but I'm certainly getting tired of this shit. If an editor can't be collaborative and insists on "his way or the highway" something needs to be done. It probably won't happen in this case, but I have a feeling it will be happening soon unless he changes his ways. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall commenting about Magioladitis's editing before (other than formatting this section earlier), but I have gathered something from reading the various complaints over time. Magioladitis, you seem to think that whatever it is that you're working on at the moment needs to be fixed right now. (See PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago, there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago, I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked above.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any of these edits as being particularly urgent, and Misplaced Pages is not under a deadline. Why not just wait for consensus for your edits, or for a bot task to be approved, or to at least slow the editing rate and reduce the number of articles touched to something reasonable? Why the hurry? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • DoRD There would be no hurry is we plan a strategy to make the edits with a clear plan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to be honest here - I have no idea what you're trying to say with your reply. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • DoRD I do not edit faster than I used to edit. In fact, I edit less. Moreover, we have two bunhces of my edits discussesed here a) The edits of 6 days ago which the bots were already doing but without other fixes. and b) Today's fixes where the bots were not doing because they were uncovered cases. For example, tabs inside ISBNS causing the ISBN to break. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Primefac makes a good case for filing another ArbCom case, since the community continues to struggle with this disruption. These edits violate AWB Rule of Use #3, in my opinion, as they are extremely minor. More importantly, editors have objected and consensus has not been obtained before continuing. I predicted we'd be back at that venue within three months. It appears to have taken four. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• If my eidt are extremelly minor imagine the edits done by the bots. And don't ignore the fact that I did edits not done by the bots.

• As a side note, 13 edits per minute seems like a lot, but it's actually pretty doable with AWB when not making too many changes. The problem is the repeated edits after being asked to stop, which places the burden on the editor to obtain consensus, not the actual rate of the edits, in my opinion. Editing against consensus is serious on its own. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The edits have consensus since they wre approved to be done by bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to do them without a bot flag as an exception to AWB Rules of Use #3. You had many editors come to you on your talk page disagreeing with the edits, which is a sign you should stop until the edits are discussed. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You again seem to ignore the fact that the last bunch of edits was not exactly posisble for a bot but it needed some human attention. So also seem to ignore the fact that both bots have failed to fix those pages. I see a pattern here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: My problem with the sorts of ridiculously unimportant and unnecessary edits Magdiolatis does, is that when I check my watchlist it fills up with these edits and I have to check every single article affected to see if the useless edit is hiding a substantive edit that I missed since the last time I checked my watchlist. This becomes singularly unfeasable when one has a lot of articles on one's watchlist and they are all being bombarded with useless edits. And no, I'm not going to remove bot edits or AWB edits from my watchlist (especially since numerous people sneak in substantive edits with AWB). Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender You have a point. Note that the page would have been edited by a bot anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Does this not immediately break "5.3.5 Magioladitis restricted" about doing edits that do not visually affect the rendered code? (A spot check of the changes by adding the ISBN template shows no difference that I can immediately see in the rendered page). This would a clear one month block per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem It does change the output. The new edit creates a link to ISBN. :) No block. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There are three very easy fixes for this. Restrict Mag to only making semi or fully automated edits on his bot account - no AWB editing on his main - so anything he wants to do on a mass scale has to be a bot-request. Ban him from any semi or fully automated editing completely. Or ban him from checkwiki-based editing. Any option is completely manageable and easy to spot when violated. The problem with his existing restrictions is the overabundance of good faith on those imposing them that he would stick to them and not try and wriggle around them. It has been clear for a long while that Mag is not interested in what others think when he thinks these trivial things have to be fixed right now, and will attempt to work around both the spirit and the letter of any restriction placed. So the only options left are restrictions which have zero leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Only in death does duty end But today the edits needed human attention. As I said Magic Bots failed to fix these pages and I have not edited for this task for 6 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13 That's why I stopped 6 days ago and resumed today to cover different cases after the bots stopped fixing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You know something Magioladitis? Your arguments seem to be the same sort of thing we see when people write unblock requests like "I only reverted three times within 24 hours" or "my edits were right so everyone else was vandalising". I have little time for people who try to wikilawyer their way out of disrupting other editors because the letter of the law said it was okay. I propose a last chance - next time you are caught doing rapid-fire edits without clear and obvious evidence you are thinking what you are doing, you should be blocked. Who agrees? Ritchie333 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 OK so you support that the edits could be done by main account but not at that edit rate (13-15 epm). I say this is a support to the task afterall. Fianlly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So let summarise: There was a 6 days period of no edits from my side. The edits of the phase 1 and phase 2 were not the same. Ther was a consensus for both phases to be done. Phase 1 was done by bots. Phase 2 was not. I participated semi-manually in both phases while I also seeked bot approval. I also replied immediatelly to fellow editor who complained proposing a workaround. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment:Totally agree with what Softlavender says above. My watchlist has been filled with edit notifications with the message "Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki Rfc" and I have no idea what this even means but I have to check every single article to see if something important was changed to the article before that which I have missed. It has been very irritating.Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And it is still happening,by the way. Seems to be something about adding brackets to ISBN numbers but I wish it would stop.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Smeat75 You obviosuly refer to the bot edits (PrimeBot, Magic links bot) because I have a different edit summary. Moreover, I am aware of the problem and this is the reason I proposed that the bots cause minimum disruption. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Maybe it was not clear that I was not planning to do the bot task via my account. Today, I have loaded a list of pages with approx. 2,000 pages. The ISBNs fixes are much more. I even have proposed to another bot owner to take over the task but encouraged them to perform general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm going to throw this out there, because I think it's worth at least considering at this point. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm at wit's end. Ritchie333 quite generously proposed a last chance, which Magioladitis has already been given many times over in various past discussions. The response to this was some severe WP:IDHT which involved twisting Ritchie's words into being support of the task. At this point, the repeated issues are a giant timesink for the community, and very little value is being added anywhere.

I'd also like to note that Magioladitis continued this editing even after the ANI thread began, which doesn't give me great hope for the future.

I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month for disruptive editing and violations of AWB rules of use #3 (failing to seek consensus when the task was challenged multiple times). ~ Rob₁₃ 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Can you please explain Bgwhite to me and if you finally found his email and emailed him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about with me emailing him? ~ Rob₁₃ 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 I ve striken this out. We will sort out probably some other time. I am here to encourge people editing Misplaced Pages. I hope you are too.-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposed block, there have been indeed many last chances. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Capitals00 Do you propose to block Rob for mishandling th Bgwhite case? I don't understand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bu Rob13 said "I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month", I agreed with the "proposed block". Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 OK. I misread. It's difficult to cope with Rob because he keeps commenting after all my comments. I have said that propabbly he seeks to harass me probably due to the discussions during th ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

When somebody proposes a sanction in good faith to reduce disruption on the project, do you think it's a good idea to insult them and throw around unfounded accusations of harassment? Ritchie333 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Apologies for that but I try to understand why when other edit in faster rates, when other tasks could be done by bots, when I have explained thoughouly my position I am still the target of attention by a certain person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 My proposals for group edits by bots aim to reduce disruption on the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I have even provided links where one of the two bots edited and then I edited fixing the bot's edit. This is a proof not all pages could have been fixed by the two bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but.... The edits were made in good faith, but the real problem here is again concerns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with some kind of rush that those edits need to be done right now otherwise the end is upon us. Consider for a second that you are not singled out for your edits because you are Magioladitis and there's a witch hunt against you, but rather because you repeatedly make either low-value (or at-first-glance low-value edits) in a WP:MEATBOT-like manner, when better alternatives don't seem to have been considered. On a go-foward basis, when anyone objects to any semi-automated edit you make, get consensus for those edits, either at WP:BOTN, or at the very least check with WP:BAG to give you the thumbs up on resuming the task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block While I think something should be done, I don't think this is the right solution. I'm not sure what the best remedy is but I'd be leaning much more towards a semi-automated restriction for 30days than an outright block. I brought this here because I see this activity as being disruptive to our volunteers not directly disruptive to our readers (or I would have blocked myself). — xaosflux 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the disruptive part is the edit rate or that this task could be done by bots? Recall, I proved that that the bots were not fixing all the pages I was fixing. I alos proved that my edits were actually fixing the visual outcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block, but Support 7 day block - nothing else seems to be having an effect on the editor's behaviour, but 30 days seems excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Please read WP:NOPUNISH -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, support 30-day AWB ban. Xoasflux has it best, I think; Mag needs to do things through the proper channels, in the right manner, and if that means kicking them off AWB for a month, so be it. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The 30 day block proposal tells a lot of how some people approach things. We are here to build and not destroy. Thanks for opposing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block he simply doesn't get it but a 30 day block is not the solution. My watchlist has been spammed by his edits however and I had thought to myself that surely this was banned under his ArbCom case, but it appears not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block-_Continual failure to adhere to community expectations but a 30 day block is not the solution.I was too inclined to supp.(in view of the ARBCOM case) but regrettably there is no such point.Winged Blades 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I don't believe a block is the solution, but at this point I do think something has to be done. Following on from what Xaosflux and Primefac have said above, I propose a one-month total ban on use of AWB and any similar semi-automated tool for Magioladitis on his main ("Magioladitis") account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I would have suggested three months, but have gone with what has already been mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support three-month ban; one-month is too short; should be at least three months in my opinion. We really need to see if Magioladitis is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite AWB ban Temporary AWB ban would be good if this was first complaint but like others said, that there have been many threads on ANI about his use of AWB. Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 Do you know there was an ArbCom very recently about my edits? Also note that

a) all the changes I did change the visual outcome

b) they were not done by the exisiting bots (I provided diffs).

c) I have requested approval to do this task by bot since March 25, 2017.

d) The task is considered useful and since MW will remove magic links support soon there is a (loose?) deadline.

Magioladitis (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with the BRFAs for Magioladitis at this point. Given conduct issues that have required BAG comment, every BAG member is either involved (so can't handle the BRFA) or not planning to go anywhere near it to avoid getting dragged into the behavioral issues. I don't know how to resolve that. We can't force any BAG member to handle specific BRFAs, but it also isn't fair to implement a de facto ban on operating bots by virtue of having no willing BAG member to review the BRFAs. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one month ban On the plus side, Magioladitis is making good faith edits to articles nobody else particularly wants to do. On the other hand, the amount of disruption and insistence on refuting every single point of disagreement is taking time away from numerous editors that would be better spent improving the encyclopedia. Find another editor to make the ISBN fixes. A one-month ban will do for now, if disruption re-occurs, the next ban will be longer. (Extra advice to Magioladitis - if you reply to this, disagreeing with it or otherwise refuting it in detail, you'll just strengthen my support for this ban, so I would advise you not to). Ritchie333 09:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB editing from main account. Three months or less. I hate this solution because it's incredibly shitty to say a dev can't use their own tool, but what other choice is there? I still think a shorter term block could get the message through more clearly. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB from any account, to avoid evasion. Like Rob, still think a shorter term block would be more appropriate. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Hchc2009: I think this may go to far - there are approved tasks (and some being considered) for Magioladitis' bot (Yobot) that are not causing this disruption (flooding of watchlists and recent changes) - primarily because they are being done from a bot account. That is useful, desirable activity and I wouldn't want to stymie it. Of course, if the bot goes off-task bot blocking is an immediate option. — xaosflux 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Xaos, I think we need to probably draw a line under this behaviour once and for all - if we're not going to impose a block, implementing the sanction on all of his accounts would seem a reasonable precaution. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Which rule did I break exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*2 Support one-month ban--Community expectations exceed the bounds of good-faith. And add to this constant bludgeoning which does not even seem to be well-thought before posting.Winged Blades 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Between the edits I did 7 days ago and the edits I did yesterday, do you see any difference or not? Do think I did an effort to adjust my editing or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not going to evaluate all of those; in general (and only my opinion not intended as a policy or guidelines measurement): I think you needlessly make massive amounts of minor edits (e.g. look at this edit you made during this whole debate about disruptive bulk editing - how did that improve the article? It looks like you are just executing blind bot task under your editor account again...) that have little if any improvement for our readers in a manner that floods watchlists and recent changes (disrupting our volunteers). However, when you channel your efforts to well defined and community supported bot tasks, you contributions are much more positive. — xaosflux 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Here is the thing again.

a) This edit is WP:CHECKWIKI error 61. It's marked as one of the errors that change the visual outcome. I would like Headbomb to comment on that. I face the same problem here again and again. Some people thing these edits are not useful and some other thing they are.

b) I changed the visual outcome.

c) I used a clear edit summary.

d) I followed all the rules given to me from the ArbCom. As I recall i was written that my edits in gerenal are not the problem.

e) My edit is not "cosmetic".

f) It does not fall in the WP:COSMETICBOT neither.

g) I have been doing for 6-7 years and

h) I have a BRFA waiting 4 months Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34.

i) It edit rate is ~4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Did you even look at the edit I just pointed out (Special:Diff/788465565)? You took a bad sentence (ending with .<ref link>:) and left it bad when you were done (changing it to .:<ref link>). Why you though moving that colon around is baffling - and doesn't explain how you made this better for readers. The fact that you say want to do this with a BRFA, but will just floodperform it as your editor account instead of waiting for approval is part of the problem being discussed above. — xaosflux 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, did you actually look at the edit to Blue mud dauber? You changed the end of a sentence from full stop then reference then colon to full stop then colon then reference. The result has gone from a bad visual outcome to a still-bad visual outcome. Actually looking at the edit, it is clear that the colon should be removed. Earlier in the thread, you said your edits couldn't be done by bot as they needed human attention / input... yet you still did them at 13 edits per minute? Either you are checking each edit, in which case 13 per minute is too fast and you didn't actually fix the blue mud dauber case, or you aren't and the edits are essentially unsupervised bot-type edits. Have I missed something? EdChem (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And now you have "fixed" the error by removing the full stop, and the text still doesn't make sense. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, EdChem OK I missed the dot but I can detect these very easily in a second run. Much easier than the before. I usually make a run with AWB and then use WPCleaner to fix those that remained unfixed or the controversial cases. These are very tricky for the eye. I have not seen the dot. Right now I am on 4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

EdChem OK I did a mistake using normal broswer now and I fixed it after your comment. You could help though. Thanks ayway for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was helping, fixing the referencing. I note you added a title to a bare url, which was good, but I did a little more – adding the url for the full text of the journal article, recognising the second ref was a dead-link and a mangled reference to a book, and finding the third is a source on which we have a WP page, with a recent update and publisher available. I also noted that the Chalybion californicum in the title is italicised. Regards, EdChem (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User "Muck" vs. user "Nephiliskos" and "Dr.Lantis"

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

Muck (talk · contribs) stalks and threatens user "Nephiliskos" at this page. Please note that user "Muck" has already stalked and mobbed user "Nephiliskos" in German Misplaced Pages until besaid user left there. Please also take note of Muck's general behavior: instead of greeting the owner of reported page ("Heagy1") properly and offering help, he yells at diligent autors and now even threatens them. Regards;--Dr.Lantis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Emandation: Now user "Muck" insults "Nephiliskos" and insinuates use of sock puppets. "Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that.

As I already explained and you can see it under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer tt was never at all my interest to stalk and threaten user "Nephiliskos" in the english wikipedia. My words there: "I have the right with my international accout Muck (the only account i have in the in the whole Misplaced Pages!) to work at this place Here. The initial reason was to confirm the seriousness of the new user Heagy1 in the Article "Narmer" in the german Misplaced Pages as well as in the english WP, and nothing else."

But it ist the second time, that @Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis - (a sockpuppet of Nephiliskos here in the english Misplaced Pages) try to manipulate a diskussion in the english Misplaced Pages (see here), this time after he had deleted my contribution under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer which I had restored already by warnig him to repeat deleting my contribution there. -- Muck (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Frisk lies, Muck. Your insinuations are unproven. And where exactly am I "manipulating" a discussion? All I do is asking you to leave others alone and you? You start such an emberrassing affront in a discussion where you weren't even mentioned. Instead of properly greeting "Heagy1" first and offering help you start an ad personam affront against "Nephiliskos".--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

""Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that." - In the german Misplaced Pages I never claimed that user Nephiliskos uses his accout Dr.Lantis in the same timeperiod as sockpuppet in the German Misplaced Pages, but I claimed there, that he already did this in the english WP. In the german WP I was only told that I have not the right to claim the use of a sockpuppet, when a second account from the same person was not used at the same time, specially to manipulate a discussion. But her in the english WP the facts are different, because the accounts of Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis are accounts from the same person and used to manipulate a discussen, now alredy for a second time! It is no problem in WP to find out if Nephiliskos uses the account Dr.Lantis in the shown cases simultaneously and therefore as a sockpuppet and with this behavior try to manipulate a discussion. -- Muck (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Muck, this report is all about your behaviour. You were asked not to stalk or bugg "Nephiliskos". But you do. You intervene in a discussion where your name was never dropped. You make on diligent authors out of the blue. And in other Wikis you snitch on newbies. You behavoiur is disgusting and a nuisance for this project.--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• What a lovely cross-wiki melodrama, but de-wiki is not my bailiwick. Nephiliskos and Dr.Lantis are  Confirmed. I've blocked and tagged Dr.Lantis, and blocked Nephiliskos for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Texasbrian vs Natureium

On 29 June, I edited the Fulbright Program page. I edited the section marked "Notable alumni." Specifically, I added a reference to the list "Fulbright alumni have occupied key roles in government, academia, and industry." (emphasis mine) I added that one Fulbright Scholar has now won a title on a US reality show.

User Natureium reversed the edit and posted the following on my talk page: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Fulbright Program, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned several times about this. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)"

I added text to Natureium's talk page that said, "I added a factual statement to the page. It was not vandalism and can be sourced in multiple locations. I have also not been "warned" about "this" or anything else. Your tone in reviewing edits is not in the spirit of the Misplaced Pages project, and your random accusations and actions border on abusive. If you would like to discuss the changes, let's discuss like adults."

N.B. I have never received a "warning" of any kind, not have I vandalized the page.

User Natureium removed my comment from his Talk page, then reverted my edits, making a second comment about vandalism, warnings and blocking. He has not engaged me in a discussion about the content.

As the data I have presented is factual, sourceable and fits within the established criteria of the list, I am at a loss as to why the edit keep being undone. Also, in viewing Natureium's Talk page, I see other complaints from other users on this same sort of reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasbrian (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Texasbrian, I've weighed in on the article talk page, where the other editor had opened a section. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This information has been removed several times and you keep adding it back. And I did post on the article talk page.

Let's see...

• added by an IP
• added by an IP (including "queen of the gays")
• removed by me
• added by an IP, also linked the text "America" to RuPaul's Drag Race
• removed by User:Ravensfire
• added by User:Texasbrian
• removed by me
• added by User:Texasbrian
• removed by me

Natureium (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it once, and then again after you removed it citing "disruption" and "vandalism." Please note Yngvadottir's comment "Adding the fact was not disruptive; it was intended as a broadening of the section, so far as I can see. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)" The section affected mentions the numbers of scholars who have occupied "key roles ... of industry." Your objection is that "A drag race is not of the same notability as a Nobel prize," but to my knowledge, it is the pinnacle in that industry, and no other Scholar has won a reality show. If your concern is that the list should only reflect political appointees, then the list should say that. I am following the accurate wording of what the list entails. And I am not a vandal, not am I disruptive to the Misplaced Pages community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasbrian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What I said was that there are 360,000 participants in the Fulbright Program. Fifty-four Fulbright alumni have won Nobel Prizes and eighty-two have won Pulitzer Prizes. You want to add the fact that one person won a reality TV show to the lede? Statistically, with the type of people to participate in a Fulbright Program, there are probably many people that have participated in reality shows and contests and none of them are as notable as a Nobel prize or a Pulitzer. There are many things that could be a "pinnace in that industry" and are still not notable. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some will remember that I've repeatedly called for simply dropping all coverage of Ru Paul. And... voilà! Here we are again. EEng 16:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find this? Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find it if you really want, but before I do, you do realize I would have been joking, right? EEng 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have been participants in a slow-burn edit war in violation of policy. Since neither of you appears to have a clue how to resolve content disputes constructively, I suggest you read WP:DR and begin to follow its guidance. No consensus exists on this either way, despite your claim of one, Natureium, because no one has bothered to seek one. The AT thread is too little, too late, and this page is not for the resolution of content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the page for content disputes. That's why I posted on the talk page before it was brought here. Rather than responding on the talk page, I got a notice that he had posted about it here. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That part was addressed to Texasbrian; I'm aware who started this thread. You have completely ignored the parts of my comment that were addressed to you. And your opening comment in AT, days late, was to assert a nonexistent consensus, which was the wrong way to start this dialogue. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This thread is also about behavior. We can discuss/dispute content elsewhere, but no editor should be accusing another of vandalism or disruption. That is unwarranted.Texasbrian (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right about that, but (in my view) your own hands need to be cleaner before you open ANI complaints. As I said, you didn't even try article talk, let alone the rest of WP:DR. This page is beyond weary of editors who come here without following that guidance first. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the Fulbright Program is only to happy to be associated with this and announced the win and association themselves . Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure J. William Fulbright would be very proud! EEng 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User ISurvivor007 is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

• ISurvivor007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Republic of Ecaplieria
• Escaplieria
• Draft:Escaplieria

ISurvivor007 has created and recreated articles about the micronation that he and his friend founded in their school bandroom. He insists that, because he managed to get a link on Google Maps, that the nation is de facto notable, despite notes to him (both on his own user talk page as well as talk pages of the created and now deleted articles) indicating that Google Maps is not a valid indicator of notability. This user has made no edits other than attempts to create this article, is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and appears to be suffering greatly from WP:I didn't hear that. C.Fred has been more than patient with this user, but I think the time has come to put an end to the shenanigans. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. As for the idea that being added to Google Maps makes you notable, anyone can add anything to Google Maps.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

And I've just submitted for removal of that from Google Maps. Impressive website though. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You too? Did that right after I issued the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm in multiple requests. Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wow! Talk about WP:SCHOOLONEDAY! EEng 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice. Good to see that we are not the only ones who get trolled online. Kind of funny though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal insult

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Attitude_Era&diff=prev&oldid=788319559

oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nickag989 has already been warned several times for this single occurrence, so let's just close this topic and move on. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other. TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

124.106.141.235, he already has been warned and has apologized to you. I don't know what more you're hoping for. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:SERVANT OF THE LINKS EMPIRE

Persistently added large among of spam links into various articles with nothing. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. WP:AIV would have been appropriate to report them to as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I think should be a possible sock of HENRY APPLEGATE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it may be a possible puppet of Applegate 66.87.64.113 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@66.87.64.113: Since the account have been blocked so we just ignore it, unless there was an serious disruption then will have to run an CU check by reporting at SPI. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

POTD protected version

I've tried to create tomorrows protected POTD but it isn't working due to the random image feature. I've tried creating the subpages but have come up blank with syntax errors. @Anomie: and @Crisco 1492: seem to be offline at the moment (usually AnomieBot does it but it has come up with the error here). I would appreciate someone creating the page before the MP has a blank spot in an hour. Woody (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture change on fully protected page

Hi! I would like for someone change the lock icon from gold to turquoise at Misplaced Pages:Cascade-protected items/content. (For background, see this.) I know that this may be an inappropriate venue to ask for such a task to be completed, but I am not quite sure where else to ask for an admin to perform a task for me. If the task can be done and/or someone can tell me a better place to put this question, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Edit fully-protected}} on the affected article's talk page. Sorry, but I'm not really willing to go around changing administrative pages when I know nothing about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The gigantic time investment in selecting those padlock colors represents Misplaced Pages at its best. EEng 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully request a whiter shade of pale. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. ~Oshwah~ 01:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record: Yes, ANI is not the proper place to make administrative requests. But no worries; not a big deal ;-) ~Oshwah~ 01:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved – Article semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards