Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 10 September 2018 (→IDHT and CIVIL issues with Shaddim: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Bad content about health effects of food

    The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

    If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

    I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

    I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

    They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

    There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

    Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.
    For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for at least some months, this is into WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no attempt by the proposer to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]
      • Err, of those articles I've looked just at Kombucha and there has been a fairly obvious attempt[1] at engagement. [Response to amended comment by David Tornheim – and what on earth would the identity of the OP have to do with the merits of the proposal to topic-ban Bohdi Peace? That should be decided on the evidence ... Unless this is a way of continuing a long-standing grudge you have against the OP, which would be unhelpful to everybody else here.] Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); amended 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first edit of the long list:
    edit to Sugar substitute
    This edit adds substantially new content to a high-profile article which has not been removed or even challenged at the article. If it is so problematic that it is the first on the list as justification for topic-banning, then why has the content not been removed and discussed on the talk page of the article before coming here? If the content cannot be contested, this suggests a reason to not topic-ban the editor. I went to Kombucha and Chocolate and saw the OP did not try to raise objections at the article before coming here to raise them. (I had not noticed that other editors have raised objections about the edits at Kombucha and Chocolate. On that I stand corrected.) The lists of warnings on Bodhi Peace's talk page are indeed concerning, particularly the responses here. Ultimately, because of the diff provided at Sugar substitute, my feeling is that we need to work with the editor first in correcting issues. A request that the editor "slow down" before adding new content might be in order as well. But topic-banning seems extreme without first working with the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As everybody else is saying, they don't engage on Talk. In your haste to disagree with Jytdog you are enabling a problem editor IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "[T]hey don't engage on Talk." That's clearly not true, as you well know, because Bodhi Peace responded directly to concerns you and another editor raised in this discussion at Kombucha. Bodhi Peace even conceded to a requested change with "I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit." diff That seems pretty reasonable.
    Additionally, Bodhi Peace responded at the talk page of Chocolate here. After being accused of using blogs, Bodhi Peace replied, "All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning." diff
    --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They respond but they don't "engage" - the edit then continuing on. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: Do you mean actual kombucha or black-tea mushroom? (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the plain old undiluted tea-mushroom kind of kombucha is quite delicious, although I'm doubtful of the health claims and don't have it much since it's hard to make... Never had kelp tea; didn't know it was a thing until seeing it here :P —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldenshimmer: The word kombucha (Wikipedia's style guidelines favour the more modern spelling konbucha) literally means "kelp tea" in Japanese; it's a mystery why the unrelated fungal growth in black tea (which the Chinese and Japanese call "red tea") is referred to misleadingly with the Japanese word for kelp tea, but the difference is distinct enough that I suspect I probably could have gotten away with editing the "kombucha" article while subject to a "Japanese culture" TBAN. Anyway, for those of us with a loose familiarity with Japanese tea traditions, who first heard about so-called "kombucha" as a result of Wikipedia disputes (I guess the fad hadn't caught on in Ireland before I left?), the distinction is somewhat amusing. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Huh! Cool, never knew all that before. I was aware that "kombu" is something seaweedy, and "cha" means tea, but hadn't made the connection (don't think I would even have thought of "kombucha" as being a Japanese-derived word, since I learned it as an English word before I learned its Japanese constituent of "cha"...) ^~^ —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have experience with this editor on Ted Kaczynski. Some of their edits are useful but it is time consuming to review and fix the not-so-useful contributions. Edits such as this, changing the parameter "days between" (something I challenged but was reverted) to "time between" in order to give data such as "~1 year" and "~1 1/2 years" alongside data such as "2 years 317 days" and "6 years 123 days", just confuse me. None of their edits individually are that bad but it is a persistent pattern where they will need to be reviewed and retouched. To my knowledge, they have not added any referenced material to the article so it is particularly frustrating when you are having to review copyediting. There also are edits such as this, which was explicitly argued against shortly before on the talk page, with no response on the talk page or rationale for addition. In my opinion, they either edit on a whim without much care to the result or Guy's assessment is accurate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block User was subject to an indef block six months ago, then a few days later accepted a conditional unblock.[2][3] In the subsequent months, they have violated their unblock condition 35 times (Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect"). It's also unfortunate to see David Tornheim still advocating for NOTHERE editors; I would suggest also TBANning David from AN/ANI/AE discussions in which he is not involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Can we TBAN someone from administrative pages though? From my understanding TBANing was about articles not Wikipedia processes. Sakura CarteletTalk 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely been done. Banning someone from a prescribed DR process is really a no-go, so my initial wording was problematic (I've now fixed it); DT's involvement in ANI threads over the last eighteen months or so (going back, as far as I know, to his highly questionable actions here, which resulted in this mess -- someone who proposed mandatory mentoring as preferable to an indef block, and volunteered himself as the mentor, should never be allowed get away with saying please continue this discussion elsewhere... thanks... when a third party asks them to rein their mentee in, and I think NeilN would have been within his rights to immediately place the indef-block that had not been imposed previously on the sole condition that DT do the mentoring and EC listen to it) has been to undermine the process as revenge for his having been TBANned from GMOs and almost immediately blocked for ignoring said TBAN. Actually, his suddenly showing back up on ANI now comes across as a bit HOUNDish given his history with Jytdog (which, for the sake of full disclosure, I found out about by Ctrl+Fing Jytdog's name on the DT TBAN entry, and noticed him quasi-GRAVEDANCing on Jytdog for having been TBANned by ArbCom from the same topic area the previous year; I actually didn't know Jtydog was subject to a TBAN when I started typing this, else I probably wouldn't have brought up DT's own TBAN from the same topic area). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As it has been proposed, I also support an indefinite block. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User hoaxing, creating bad redirect

    This user has been making edits relating to the Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk, which is either a hoax or something made up. The user made an article about the subject, but it was deleted. Next he redirected the page to Psychedelic folk and made an edit to the page [4]. He has also been inserting related material into other articles [5]. While it appears that many of this user's other edits may be constructive, this behavior needs to be looked into. funplussmart (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved and renamed this thread to try to get more attention to this user. funplussmart (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk is indeed an internet hoax. The question remains as to whether this editor knowingly inserted it as a hoax at Wikipedia, or whether they saw it on the internet and believed it. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the RfD discussion and apparently it is a made up genre related to the signer Emily Bindiger. I also tagged the redirect for G3 sppedy deletion, which according to several RfD participants is what should've happened in the first place. funplussmart (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lillyput4455 (Pakistanpedia)

    I warned Lillyput4455 (talk · contribs) a couple of times on their talk page to avoid adding OR and poorly sourced material to Pakistan related BLPs but despite the warnings, the user continuously adding OR and poorly sourced material to numerous BLPs.

    For instance, @GSS: removed OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Mizna Waqas bio on 2 September. Lillyput4455 re-added it saying sources are not required [6].

    I also removed the OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Madiha Imam bio on 2 September [7], Lillyput4455 readded it a few days later [8]. The next day I removed it again [9] but Lillyput4455 re-added it again [10]. I removed it again yesterday [11] and cautioned the user User_talk:Lillyput4455#September_2018_2 but today Lillyput4455 reinserted the same OR.

    Similarly I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Hiba Bukhari [12]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [13].

    I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Rabab Hashim bio yesterday [14]. Lillyput4455 re-added it today [15].

    I removed OR from Anum Fayyaz bio yesterday [16] and Lillyput4455 re-added it today [17]. I removed poorly sourced and OR from Sonia Mishal bio yesterday [18]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [19].

    And earlier today I removed OR from Maham Amir bio [20]. Lillyput4455 re-added it a while ago [21].

    Other than all these, Lillyput4455 has a deep relation with disruptive sockfarms and I suspect Lillyput4455 could be sock of Pakistanpedia and therefore suggest behavioral investigation should be carried out. Lillyput4455 and socks of Pakistanpedia contribute to same type of articles (Pakistani drama actors and TV series). They create articles in same style (add OR and use unreliable sources to support claims) and upload free-use images on Wikipedia with same descriptions. They both use mobile device, often sign their comments in same way (no time and date stamp) and both blank their user talk pages to remove warning messages by the bots.

    When I nominated for deletion a BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas). User:RidaJunejo (a sock of Pakistanpedia) voted keep, saying the subject played prominent role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz. Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz was created by Lillyput4455 and have no WP:N.

    Lillyput4455 came as possible sock in recent SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pakistanpedia/Archive#02_September_2018_2). He also came as possible sock in recent SPI on Wikimedia Commons (commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lillyput4456). --Saqib (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a sock and this is not your job Saqib (talk) to determine who is sock or who is master user. I added reliable sources to Madiha Imam from Dawn and The News International but instead you called it poorly sourced. You don't want users like us to here. I will always continue my editing regarding actresses and surely with reliable sources. I hope you get that.

    Lillyput4455 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As one can clearly, you're adding OR and when you cite sources, they're mostly unreliable sources. And yes, you do sometime cite reliable sources to give the perception that everything is sourced via a RS but source does not support what is contained in the Wikipedia articles which means you're just dodging people. And currently you're edit warring on Madiha Imam. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I found Lillyput to be unrelated to Pakistanpedia. ANI is not the place to determine behaviorally whether the user is a sock despite the technical evidence to the contrary. This has already been hashed out at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Saqib is continuing to make the same accusations against Lilliput of sockpuppetry of Pakistanpedia when checkuser has already said there is no link and admins have found no compelling evidence and so this amounts to hounding together with closely following his every edit and nominating his articles for AFD while lecturing him on his talkpage, I believe Saqib should be warned of his stalking. However, Lilliput has used some unreliable sources as well as reliable sources so I suggest he rereads WP:Reliable sources and when he uses websites rather than press, book, or magazines he should check whether the websites are reliable by asking at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Also I don't think Lilliput is a UPE as he has added content to TV articles such as "this series received very bad ratings", "was criticised" etc which a paid editor would not add, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atlantic306: OK I was expecting this from you. For your kind information, I'm a Pakistani and I contribute to Pakistani related BLPs. I was not hounding or stalking Lillyput4455.These noted BLPs are are in my watchlist and this user has been adding OR and poorly sourced material to BLPs, repeatedly and therefore I think this report is justified and was long overdue. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306: WP:HOUNDING states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Lorstaking (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306: How repeated? This is just the second time. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I started to look at the edits of the user, and already the first one which I have chosen randomly looks troublesome to me: This edit introduces info which is not sourced (not in an added source, not in the one which was in that paragraph). Will choose now a couple of more edits. (No idea on whether this is a sock).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Similarly, adding unsourced text. I mean, it is quite possibly that it could be sourced, but this has not been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And adding completely unsourced info.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All three diffs are from the last two days. I do not have time now for further research, but at the very least, this topic should be closed with a strong warning to the user concerning WP:V and WP:OR. It looks like they still have difficulties applying these policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this thread, Lillyput4455 still edit warring on Madiha Imam to add OR and citing unreliable sources. I can see WP:IDHT. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: I'm fine with a warning for now. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The block must have expired, and I guess there is nothing else to do here for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: Lillyput4455's behaviour is still disruptive. For instance, On 7 September, I added ref improve tags to two poorly sourced pages ([22] and [23]). Lillyput4455 yesterday removed the tags from both pages ([24] and [25]). I re-added the tag earlier today [26] however xe removed it again [27] saying the sources are reliable - when the issue is different. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is slowly moving to a content dispute. They obviously believe the sourcing is sufficient, and sources are reliable. The article talk page is the best place to start sorting out this disagreement.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: It appears Lillyput4455 is not going to stop adding OR to BLPs anytime soon. The user created Faysal Manzoor Khan and added OR. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned Lillyput4455 not to add OR a while ago - [28] but he's still trying to add OR. For instance, he just added something which is not in the cited source. --Saqib (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lillyput4455 continue adding unreliable sources to the said BLP. I'm going to stop reverting him because of 3RR. @Ymblanter: --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That ref looks to be a mistake rather than deliberate as the names of the directors are very similar, and its not an unreliable source. I've also just advised him about OResearch so this should be enough if he follows the advice, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now xe removed the AfD notice. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just curious why you defending him. Lillyput4455 has again removed the AfD notice [29] and continue adding OR [30] despite a warning on his talk page. Clear WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND mentality. --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ive readded it and explained to him about it as he thought the wording in the notice meant it was kept so it was a mistake by him not deliberate. He's also agreed not to add original research. One of the reasons Im defending him is because you have upset him with erroneous repeated sockpuppet allegations which is why he does not take much notice of your edits and warnings, hopefully he will follow the advice Ive given him, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you see xe re-added the OR even after you left a message on their talk page and xe agreed not to add OR. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued vandalism by user:Mainbody of Councils_of_Carthage

    I have provided the user Mainbody warnings regarding editing the Councils_of_Carthage page. He continually removes the primary source material which can be found in first source documents and insisted on using a some source 1300 years later who provides an opinion which is not supported in by the first source. This second hand source may be mistaken as to which council debated the matter in question. All the Canons published by the council of 419 can be found on line and no source supports Mainbody assertion The complete canons of the council can be found here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm I have directed Mainbody to these but he insists on removing edits citing from primary sources perhaps for partisan reasons. I had provided a friendly correction but his response was "yawn". DeusImperator (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that you read WP:NPA, which makes clear that describing a content dispute as 'vandalism' is unacceptable, and then read WP:RS, and WP:OR. We do not use material dating from A.D. 419 (even in translation) as sources of fact. We cite historians and other scholars for that. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the IP's analysis. Mainbody's edits are good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, such as the part of WP:RS that says to prefer secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing on the actual primary source documents which support the edit. I have read through the canon in which the secondary source cites and it has nothing to do with what is alleged by the secondary source. The secondary source is not credible. Someone might act in good faith and yet be wrong. DeusImperator (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Document cited in footnote #8 does not even match the date of the council. It speaks of a council held in 417 or 418 but even that is incorrect. DeusImperator (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion is a screed, and is a polemical work and not a work of history, and relies on works such as the Foxe Book of Martyrs. I had my suspicions when I read "nisi forte romanam sedem appellaverit " which I have not seen in any of document and appears to be from a historically unknown council of Millevitane which has no source prior to 1500. But post 1500 there are several reference to it. Which call into credibility of the source. (editing: the council of Millevitane may actually refer to the Council of Milevi held in Algeria not Carthage and dealt with the plagian heresy) DeusImperator (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANI does not settle content disputes. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Majik Ninja Entertainment

    The other day I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment as "redirect". On the face of it, given there were no !votes other than "merge" and "redirect", this sounds like a pretty obvious decision.

    Since then, I have had a couple of complaints on my talk page that Magik Ninja Entertainment is notable and I've made the wrong decision. I've attempted to explain that I have no real opinion if we should have an article on this or not, and simply closed the AfD against the arguments I was presented with. However, I have noticed that John from Idegon has had a bit of a chequered history on the article, including what appears to be violating WP:3RR on 27 August, and before that, Jim1138 has had a go at edit-warring too. The article has since been semi-protected by Ponyo, bringing the disruption to the close. Since then, I see a semi-protected edit request was filed on the talk page; to which John From Idegon gave them a well-reasoned response.

    So, my questions to the peanut gallery are the following:

    • Did I close the AfD correctly? If not, why not?
    • If I didn't, should I start a deletion review, or simply re-open the AfD to allow further consensus?
    • Have John from Idegon and Jim1138 been disruptive, or simply following best practice?
    • Are the new users complaining on my talk disruptive, or do they have a valid point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you closed the AFD correctly. I don't think John from Idegon violated 3RR, the edits were removing swathes of unsourced content added repeatedly by an IP which was almost certainly evading a block (as a sock of Demolytionman420). So no, not disruptive. The new users complaining on your talk page are perfectly free to create a draft article and try and improve it so it would meet our notability criteria. You could, as a helpful step, draftify the old article for them. Fish+Karate 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Under normal circumstances, I would do just that; however given the above discussion, I am concerned that the draft would be set upon by the editors I mentioned above as "against policy", "out of process", "aiding and abetting socks" or some similar rationale. Hence why I wanted to come here first and get a consensus on what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a draft article is neither against policy nor is it out of process, so go for it. Fish+Karate 11:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think draftification is the answer here. The material prior to the redirect was sourced almost exclusively to faygoluvers.com, a website that would best be described as a Juggalo fansite. A better question would be, how did Froggyfixit, a brand new editor whose entire edit history concerns this article, find his way to the talk page of a redirect for his first edit, and figure out how to post a protected edit request? I doubt this is further block evasion, as Froggy writes in more or less standard English and the blocked editors linguistic style was more urban vernacular. But it certainly does seem to be WP:MEAT or possibly WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Tom O'Carroll

    The article about Tom O'Carroll, identified in his article as a "pro-paedophile advocate", is being disruptively edited by Anotherultimatename. This user has several times added mention of a paper by the subject of the article ("Childhood 'Innocence' is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex"). See here, here, and here. The addition is opposed both by me (I've removed it several times now) and by ScrapIronIV, who removed it here as "promotional", which arguably it is.

    I have tried to indicate to Anotherultimatename that edit warring to add potentially controversial content on a paedophilia-related article, content that is supported by no one other than him, is a really, really terrible idea. I have politely suggested that he should just drop the issue and move on. The user won't seem to get the point, however, and is still adding the content, most recently here. Could admins please step in and put a stop to this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to block, but he's only done one edit on the article today and has filed a request at third opinion to try and resolve the dispute, so I'm going to give him a final warning instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A third opinion request is disingenuous. It is for disputes between two editors; in this case, it is two editors versus one other editor. The user just needs to walk away from this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It appears that Anotherultimatename is new, has never been informed of our policy on edit warring, and is trying to use the talk page, but FreeKnowledgeCreator has rather quickly taken this to ANI. This doesn't appear to be an obvious case of editing against consensus, as the talk page discussion is just a back-and forth between 2 users, (ScrapIronIV made a single revert with no discussion on the talk page[31], so I can't see how a 3O request is bad faith). The edit warring does need to stop, but an edit warring block for a new user who has not been informed of WP:EW would be a case of WP:BITE Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a new user, and I believe I know who it is, but checkuser evidence would be stale at this point. I have not filed an SPI report for that reason. There is consensus to keep this non-notable article from the article. Scr★pIronIV 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the article in question that this editor wishes to include is a clear violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT in that it promotes inappropriate adult-child relationships, and actually claims that "...child adult sexual relations are not intrinsically harmful and may be beneficial." This advocates "inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" - which is explicitly prohibited. Scr★pIronIV 16:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording of WP:CHILDPROTECT does not support ScrapIronIV's interpretation. The relevant sentence in full is: 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely'. This would support the blocking of O'Carroll himself were he to become an editor, as he has identified himself as a pedophile, but in no way would it support the exclusion of material about one of O'Carroll's publications. The fact that the views expressed in this publication involve support for almost universally condemned adult-child relationships is no reason to exclude it, as mentioning someone's views is totally different from advocating them oneself. Anotherultimatename (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will comment that he filed the Third Opinion request after his second request to the dispute resolution noticeboard was declined. The first request was declined due to inadequate discussion and inadequate notice to the other editors. The second request was declined both because the notice was still not properly provided and because, in the talk page discussion, the other editor said that they had nothing further to say. If they have nothing further to say at the talk page, they are not likely to have anything further to say at DRN. It appears that this editor is forum shopping, looking for as many ways to continue discussion or to insert the material as possible. I recommended and will still recommend a Request for Comments. I will also say, as I have said in other disputes, that if saying something twice isn't persuasive, there is no reason to think that saying it five times will be. Use a Request for Comments and be done with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting to the actual content of the edit, the article cited (pdf easily locatable on the internet), is indeed a pro-pedophilia journal article appearing in a juried academic journal published by Springer. So that is all true. What remains is a content fight, two against one. I have no strong opinion about whether such content should be included or not; my inclination is to say it should but I wouldn't touch this BLP with a twenty foot pole myself. Bottom line: maybe a slow motion edit war, but nothing "promotional" or with culpable intent, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reflection, there should not be a subsection in the piece on the journal article, but it should be listed as "Works" or under "Further Reading." Not sure the bio should even exist at WP, but that's an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated for deletion, we'll see what the community says at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Anotherultimatename is a single-issue account focused on the Tom O'Carroll article to the exclusion of everything else, it is quite plausible that it is a sock. That is one reason I did not bother to notify Anotherultimatename on his talk page about the rules on edit warring. Perhaps I should have done so anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anotherultimatename has only made 22 edits, so it's a bit early to start calling them an SPA, it is entirely possible that this is just the first topic they plan to edit, you don't need to edit multiple topics in your first 30 edits to be acting in good faith. We must not assume new users are socks and block them for violating policies they were never informed of, if anyone has clear evidence of socking, block the sock(s), but don't assume bad faith like this.
    I have now informed Anotherultimatename of the edit warring policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we shouldn't simply assume new users are socks, but neither should we be blind to things that might suggest that new users are socks. Anotherultimatename was aware of the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so clearly he already knew something about Wikipedia despite the small number of edits associated with the account. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Emilyjohnson1986

    Consensus is that the block was good--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've been watching Emilyjohnson1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a while. I have just blocked due to failure to engage and persistent COI editing with, as far as I can see, no non-conflicted edits at all. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have endorsed the block and dropped my 2c on their talk page. I don't particularly like blocks like this, but sometimes we just have to do them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I thought you Brits "spend a penny" instead of "dropping 2c". EEng 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, good block. Here only to promote RNN, likely employee or contractor who is unwilling to engage and learn what we so here, and how. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jytdog (yet again) and Yakult

    "This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in." is simply not acceptable editing behaviour.

    This is yet another example of Jytdog as Saviour of Wikipedia against all other editors. This week he's taken against Yakult. I don't know if you can even buy this in the US, but it's huge in Europe and massive in its original Japan. But Jytdog wants rid of it.

    That much is reasonable. But the edit warring and attacks on other editors since are not. This is typical Jytdog and it needs to stop. [32] [33] User_talk:Jytdog#Incivility. In particular, and classic Jytdog, they fall back on MEDRS as an excuse to impose whatever they want (and it's always their subjective WP:OR opinion, not anything sourced) against any source of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Umm... How are these diffs[34] [35] personal attacks? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They're edit-warring and attacks on other editors (and their opinions, which we respect, per consensus). Jytdog has a substantial track record of both this, and of hiding behind MEDRS on utterly irelevant topics (metallurgy?) because he's an unassailable editor "defending" WP against fake medical claims. Yet he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Dingley I suggest you retract your personal comments about Jytdog, otherwise you look a little hypocritical. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that be the statement, "He's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot."? Can I use a large <font> tag to make the point? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the statement I am referring to, but it would think it unwise to use the font tag. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Jytdog was being less than civil, I'll give you that, but you appear to be assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just the latest installment of a long series of behaviour, wherein only Jytdog is a good enough editor to save Wikipedia from the barbarian horde. See User talk:Cullen328#AfD thing. He abuses other editors at an AfD, claims that no-one either will, or is fit to, "save" an article, goes for a fair bit of WP:REICHSTAG about how terrible this "spam" article is and how it must be speedied (but just take a look at the size of Yakult as a company and product). Then when other editors do start to show an interest in working on it, they're abused, reverted, berated at their own talk: pages and templated like a newbie. Such that then only Jytdog gets to edit the article (lesser editors will just be reverted on sight) and then finally there's a victory parade and round of applause from his fans, because only Jytdog was able to save Gotham. No. This is a collegiate project, and Jytdog needs to learn how to work with others. And that starts by leaving out the scatological abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy is all sweaty and exercised, but scurrying to that page to edit badly and leaving such silly notes on the talk page don't help create high quality content. It was rather just WP:POINTY (perfectly so - actually restoring bad and badly sourced, policy-violating content, to make a point).
    Ever since that reprap thing Andy has let themselves get all worked up over me periodically, as they acknowledged here (and as anyone can see in that thread).
    I'd like folks to consider a one-way IBAN, as mentioned the last time Andy was blocked for their pursuit of me. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog is occasionally over-enthusiastic but he works hard to improve the encyclopedia and is almost always correct. Anyone who works to reduce the promotion of dubious products (or the promotion of products with dubious claims) gets attacked by the promoters and their enablers, as seen here. Of course Yakult won't be deleted and of course those (like me) who point that out won't help to clean up the article. No one is without sin. I support a one-way interaction ban to prevent Andy Dingley from pursuing Jytdog. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point here is that it is not an excuse for you to behave like this, and then strike it, as if that excuses it. You do this all the time. Your wolf-call has worn thin. You are perpetually abusive to other editors, and then you excuse this by reverting later. No. This has to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but where is the justification in such hostile behavior and antagonistic retoric by Jytdog? Are we saying that "working hard" means that an editor don't have to be civil? Then I would like to know what level of editing can excuse such a behavior? How is it this behavior acceptable from anyone? be it an IP or a 15 year veteran? Oh and an "IBAN" for reporting bad behavior?  MPJ-DK  00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also have concerns about Jytdog regarding WP:civility and WP:AGF, that are completely unrelated to Andy dingly's issues, and can provide diffs if needed, but this kind of standing by personal attacks[36] makes andy's complaint look hypocritical, it seems we have 2 uncivil editors making incivility accusations against eachother. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drop this and move on I happen to be one of the editors subjected to Jytdog's profane tirade, which he wisely struck out. I list over 110 articles on my userpage where I have saved articles at AfD by expanding and improving them. In this case, I provided four sources indicating that the topic is notable but had neither the time nor the interest to improve this article. I am not required to improve every single article that I recommend keeping at AfD. On the other hand, Jytdog does excellent work in the field of quackery and pseudoscience. Jytdog, please re-read the ArbCom admonitions from 2015, and realize that this type of outburst can lose you allies. Please do a better job of controlling yourself going forward. Andy Dingley, you also ought to control yourself better because your complaint here looks more vindictive than well reasoned. And yes, Yakult is sold in the United States too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious as to why repeated incivility is tolerated? Would my edit history also allow me to be uncivil? And "striking it" does not make it go away, a change in behavior makes it go away.  MPJ-DK  01:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is superficially a great question. But investigating actual issues shows that describing content (not contributors) as bad-word is often due to an underlying problem related to promotional content with extravagant and undue claims, with very polite enablers who work hard to make sure the underlying problem remains. It would be great if Jytdog were like Mother Theresa, but such a person would probably not want to battle promotional content with extravagant and undue claims. Wikipedia needs such editors more than it needs superficial civility. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So again, what is the criteria one has to meet where outright hostility is okay? I see too many excuses made for "hard working editors" all of the time here. Would you accept such a behavior from a rookie editor? How about from a vet who should know better by now.  MPJ-DK  02:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you support Jytdog's comments at the AfD? Why? Because that is what this ANI filing is about. Your appearance here is unsurprising (Jytdog has many supporters, I expect the others will show up soon), but do you have anything relevant to add to this? Andy Dingley (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, in my mind this is about your longterm policing and hounding of Jytdog for the past 2.5 years, some of which is detailed in the bulleted list towards the bottom of this thread from March 2017: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley. You got a pass that time because the opening of the thread did not make the case, and it was only spelled out at the bottom of the thread. Since you are still obviously watching Jytdog to find any infraction you can report him for, and since the community has wasted too much time on your vindictive hounding of him, it's time that this were stopped. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You got a pass that time – would that be the ANI posting where Jytdog conflated me with a claimed paid editor, then had to come back and edit his first posting, then strike it altogether? Again, classic Jytdog behaviour - make some sweeping accusation, then if it's challenged, withdraw it and pretend it never happened. No. He needs to stop doing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No this detailed and cited pattern of targeting and stalking: [37]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The profanity itself can be only said to be mild incivility, being as they are not directed at people but content; the comments about other editors not helping the article are not ideal but hardly call for sanctions IMO (especially considering he's given an apology and struck it out). Meanwhile, "Yet he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot." are undeniable strong personal attacks by Andy Dingley. And Andy seems to think that calling content WP:SYNTH- "This source does not mention Yakult. The content doesn't mention Yakult. Content here is OFFTOPIC and only here by some WP:SYN stretching" - are attacks, so is leaving a reasonably valid {{uw-nor1}} warning, apparently because "and their opinions, which we respect, per consensus"?? Apparently people can't argue against someone else's opinion on content without that being an attack? I don't know enough of the history between Andy and Jytdog to support the IBan above, however if anyone should be sanctioned it definitely should be Andy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know enough of the history between Andy and Jytdog to support the IBan above, however if anyone should be sanctioned it definitely should be Andy.
    Well, thankyou for that argument from complete ignorance.
    This is about Jytdog's behaviour at Yakult and its AfD. If you want to defrock me, then start another thread. Don't miss out Jytdog filing false SPIs against me, or me being blocked by one of his supporter admins for pointing out at ANEW that his 4RR was blockable, even on the regulars. Jytdog's history is not a glorious one, and I've had to receive plenty of it myself. He is a bully. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that if WP:BOOMERANG applies it will be applied, and attempts to deflect attention from your behavior won't wash. Pointing to your own block suggests the motivation is more related to retribution than improving the encyclopedia. Just drop it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    " Pointing to your own block" – you'll find that was Jytdog. Best ask him why he thought it was relevant to bring it up here. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I figure you're experienced enough to know about WP:BOOMERANG. My comments were solely focused on Jytdog's comments and your comments here (which are inexcusable irregardless of any history). And indeed, I've looked into the history more (searching the WP:ANI archives) and that strengthens the case that there's no real substance behind your aspersions and that per Johnuniq you appear to be bringing this for retribution. Since Dingley has continued to attack Jytdog I suggest an admin to impose a block, and I now support a one way WP:IBAN based on looking more at the history of interactions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree I attended the AfD and found Jytdog's ranting about dogshit to be unacceptably unpleasant. The AfD should not have been started in the first place as there was a clear failure to consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. The behaviour reminded me of TenPoundHammer who would likewise start impetuous AfDs and make foul-mouthed rants there. They were banned from deletion activity as a result. As Jytdog has previously been warned by arbcom, a similar sanction would be appropriate. Andy should be commended for his bravery and willingness to confront this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Your repeated attempts to smear any "deletionist" editor you don't like by associating them with the one you managed to get TBANned, while said one TBANned editor has been carefully abiding by said TBAN (clean block log since 2012, unlike yourself) and apparently done nothing to merit your GRAVEDANCE-style celebration of their ban, is highly disruptive, and will no doubt lead to your being TBANned yourself sooner rather than later. The last time you did this (or, rather, the last time I caught you doing this) it involved bringing up a string of RFAs that had ended in September 2009; it's like you're trying to bait the community into trying to do something about you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Yes, Jytdog's comments are unacceptably unpleasant, and Jytdog should attempt to be more civil. (I've been annoyed by comments made to me in the past.) On the other hand, Jytdog is an important defender of Wikipedia articles against an unrelenting flood of attempts to add material claiming medical benefits for food products for which there is simply no reliable evidence, and there are too few such defenders. I too get exasperated by these additions in the articles I watch, so I sympathize with those whose patience wears thin, even though they are wrong to allow this to spill over into rudeness. Sanctioning Jytdog would just encourage those who keep trying to add unacceptable material. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog got a bit intemperate out of frustration (I think misguided in this case - there was no way Yakult was ever going to be deleted, and that's all an AFD is there to decide). But that can happen to the best of our contributors who can be passionate about keeping Wikipedia in the right direction. The offending comment has been struck with a recognition that it was inappropriate, and I see no need for any sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Dingley needs to get over himself. Yes, the Yakult article was an advertising brochure. Still is, to a lesser degree. Yes, Jytdog was right to point it out. No, I don't think describing bad content as "dogshit" is necessarily an attack on specific people. Maybe if people weren't so quick to defend and excuse dubious quackery in articles people wouldn't get so worn down and frustrated by it. Reyk YO! 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is wise for Andy Dingley to focus on civility issues. I am more concerned about why an article like Yakult would be nominated for speedy deletion in the first place and AfD subsequently, and why people continues to template regulars in the heat of a dispute. Jytdog should know better; if there are evidence to suggest these two concerns are part of a pattern, then that should be the main focus. Other than that, I don't see anything else to be done here, as the offending comment has been struck and reflected as inappropriate. Alex Shih (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Per my !vote in the AFD, I agree with you in principle, but the comment four comments up from your own is fairly strong evidence that "consensus to delete" is the only way to fix some articles, even on notable topics, since anytime an editor who has been marked as "a deletionist" attempts to implement any of the alternatives to deletion with or without an AFD they can apparently be subjected to a barrage of "inclusionist" disruptive edit-warring and restoration of the counter-policy content in question. I didn't bother you about the mess at Talk:Mottainai because I was pretty sure you were busy with ArbCom stuff, or the similar mess at Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture because at the time I had no idea who you were and, while that was mostly an "October 2014 to May 2015" affair, you were largely inactive between August 2013 and June 2017, but neither of those are applicable at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Let's focus on the quality of Jytdog's edits, people, not the the occasional rants in edit summaries or talk discussion profanity which are as common as what one might hear in boardrooms or the Oval Office of the White House. He is a valuable tireless defender of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, invests effort in quality content and sources more than nearly all medical/food editors, and is a highly respected editor of a wide diversity of articles. Ignore the occasional discussion noise, and appreciate the unselfish extent and quality of editing on the encyclopedia project. While I feel Yakult should be retained as an article, the content as it exists now is sufficient (although it is so thin in content, reasons to consider deletion are justified), and Jytdog's edits were appropriate based on WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Zefr (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Jytdog uses a lot of colourful language, but it's always (in my experience) about content not editors. He's struck the problematic comment at the RfC, and has apologised for venting. Andy Dingley, on the other hand, has called him a bully and a fraud in this thread, a personal attack that he has refused to strike when called to, even threatening to make it large font to emphasise the point. That seems out of line to me. GirthSummit (blether) 15:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given Jytdog advice about this kind of thing many times, and it's long since gotten to where he has made it clear to me that he is sick and tired of hearing it from me, and for that matter, I'm sick and tired of telling it to him. There is no question that he is a very smart and productive member of the community, a net positive albeit not a pure positive. And I do think that Andy Dingley and Jytdog just need to steer clear of each other. I saw the AfD comments, and I think that they are childish, and that it's unfortunate that Wikipedia has gotten to the point where that sort of thing can be defended. We should not be editing in an environment where that sort of thing is tolerated. I wish that Jytdog would get into the habit of taking a breath before hitting the save button, but I doubt that he will. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I still need to clean up my own act. I am not there yet (you however have no idea how many times I do not-save comments and tone them down before I save them: i am failing too often, still).
      • That said, about the "avoiding each other" thing. What he did at Yakult is the same thing he did the times I described here, as Softlavender recalled above. Describing this as a two way issue distorts reality. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I appreciate it, genuinely, and I wish you well in all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: This edit from Jytdog completely removed the fact Yakult has 14g of sugar for every 100g. The "citation needed" tag could have been easily resolved. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    One-way IBAN proposed

    I propose a one-way IBAN against Andy Dingley from mentioning or addressing Jytdog as per WP:IBAN, in view of AD's insults above and of the long-term problem. Full disclosure: I appear above in a post by AD,[38] in the nameless shape of "one of [Jytdog's] supporter admins" (nice), who blocked AD for 31 hours in 2016 for persistent harassment of Jytdog. AD says above that my block reason was that he, AD, had "point[ed] out at ANEW that his [=Jytdog's] 4RR was blockable" and gives this diff in evidence. That's not true, but presumably an honest mistake rather than deliberate misdirection. In my block notice and the block log I stated that the reason was persistent personal attacks, and provided a diff to an example from a different ANEW thread than the one AD links to (which is nothing to the purpose). Anyway. I told Andy at that time that "I noticed Jytdog talked about an IBAN, but my experience of those is very discouraging, and I believe they should only be used in the most extreme situations, where nothing else has helped. Let's see what a short block will do." It doesn't look like it did anything at all, as might no doubt have been foreseen (I was being optimistic), and two years down the road, it looks like we have an extreme situation, and nothing but an IBAN will do it. Please support or oppose below. Or, if you like, support a two-way IBAN. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    • Support one-way. I've seen enough in diffs here with long-term interactions being a problem. Jytdog has definitely had cautions about language and getting frustrated with editors, but in my experience (including this one), that frustration usually ends up being due to other editors pursuing battleground behavior towards them and trying to use ANI, etc. to continue that.
    I tend to have a fine line between suggesting one-way vs. two-way bans though. I don't think a two-way is needed here so far, but if there is actual evidence of Jytdog trying to abuse the one-way to make potshots towards Andy (as opposed to legitimate content criticism), it can always be bumped up to two-way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way per nom. Jtdog still has stuff to work on, but I would take someone being colorful about bad content over someone following another editor around and hoping for a gotcha, which is what it feels like it happening here. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way Supported that above - per my comments above - there's a persistent pattern of Dingley personally attacking Jytdog which is unacceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way This pattern of behavior has gone on too long. Andy Dingley needs to leave Jytdog alone, and if Jytdog screws up, there are plenty of other editors to intervene. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way The behavior in this thread and the difs presented is enough to convince me that it will serve both AD and wikipedia well to stop interacting with JD. Bishonen did not clarify the length of the IBAN in the proposal, is it expected to be indef ? --DBigXrayᗙ 20:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, yes, DBigXray. An indefinite IBAN. I was kind of assuming indefinite is the default for IBANs. Of course they can be appealed, but I don't think it's a good idea that people can simply wait for IBANs to expire. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose Why does Jytdog get a free pass for our normal policies? Why did you, Bishonen, block me for a comment at ANEW pointing out that when Jytdog 4RRs he is due a block, same as anyone? Jytdog is free to post his "dogshit" comments at AfD, to persistently bully other users (go on, say he doesn't!), to pull stunts like filing fatuous SPIs, and to be the self-appointed guardian of COI, despite having a huge one of his own (and a topic ban from GMO as a result) but too secret for mere mortals to know about it. A tban which is evidently useful for blanking comments here more than it has been at keeping Jytdog away from biotech.
    Jytdog's supporters allow him to run roughshod over our basic policies and other editors. This has to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This project does not need you to be Jytdog's police officer. That has to stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you claiming that I'm banned from editing the Yakult article? Jytdog seems to think so. I didn't see the AfD, but afterwards when I start work on the cleanup, his immediate reaction is a direct reversion and a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template. That is why I posted to ANI, not because of the AfD comments themselves – although they're certainly inexcusable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through the Arbcom case, if you are using that to imply that a COI is why Jytdog was given a TBAN, you need to read it more carefully. I'm not seeing that stated anywhere in the decision. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You what, Andy Dingley? I pointed out — politely — in my post above that you had linked to an ANEW thread that was nothing to the purpose wrt my block, and I provided a link to the correct diff — the diff I gave in my block notice and in the block log — and I assumed good faith that your error was an accident — and you simply repeat your wrong link (it's not even a diff, btw) and your claim that that was what I blocked you for? You have to be kidding. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    This thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    The ANEW thread I linked to above: a comment at ANEW
    This same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    "this diff" from your comment above:
    This same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    my block notice
    My talk page (not a block notice) and Hounding, in relation to this same thread again: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    The actual block notice November 2016 and again,
    this same thread: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    "an example" from your post above
    and guess what, this same thread again: User:CanadaRed_reported_by_User:Jytdog_(Result:_)
    So no, I don't know what your point is. You're giving the same links as I'm giving, to the same comment at ANEW – where I point out that 4RR by Jytdog is blockable EW, and that's the same for any editor, including him. Except that evidently it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No meat to this complaint? Jytdog is again appointing himself the sole guardian of Wikipedia and reflex-reverting anyone else who gets involved in "his" article. That's the core of the complaint here. Now tell me that's not something he does persistently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, the diffs you claimed were personal attacks are clearly nothing of the sort. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as several people have made fairly large changes to Yakult since this discussion started, and I don't think Jytdog has reverted any of them (I haven't checked the log completely), this statement is false on its face. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is Jytdog choosing to revert me specifically? Funny that. Are you suggestingMight it be that it's for reasons unrelated to the content itself? Hmmm.... Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say, imply, or suggest anything of the kind and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is unacceptably far from true. I've had to tolerate no end of abuse from Jytdog for years, from fake SPIs, to veiled accusations of being a paid editor, to this week the fairly petty end of being templated as a newbie. So don't say that Jytdog is blameless in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interaction ban is not punishment—it is recognition of the fact that sometimes an editor can become fixated on an issue and become disruptive in their attempts to pursue the matter. In essence, no one at ANI cares who is right and who is wrong—what matters is that the pointless policing stop. Anyone else is welcome to check Jytdog's edits and report any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Not "punishment"? right, a guy reports someone for repeated hostility and he's told not to interact with the hostile editor who is given a free pass so he can be hostile again sure as heck looks like punishment to me. And yes it's obivous most people don't care that Jytdog is repatedly hostile, that double standard is abundantly clear. Don't try to sell this as anything other than a punishment, we see the double standards, we are not idiots.  MPJ-DK  01:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the joke comment about "welcome to report problems" - no thanks I don't need a pointless IBAN after being told that there are various excuses for incivility. That lesson has truely been cemented here. (And with that I am out, piece said, don't want to risk a "reminder" IBAN or anything).  MPJ-DK  01:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This claim is frequently made in community discussions such as this, but, as far as I am aware, no one has ever offered up any real evidence to support the contention. On the other hand, a perusal of WP:Editing restrictions shows a number of one-way IBans which appeared to have worked, and others which have caused the banned editor to later be indefinitely blocked, which is a success for the IBan in another way. I think perhaps use of this trope should be shelved until someone can show it to be true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken: As I said further down, I've actually opposed one-way IBANs (and proposed two-way IBANs in situations where I recognized that the situation was one-way disruption) in the past, primarily as a result of this near-unanimous ArbCom decision that one-way IBANs simply are not a thing. The community has imposed such restrictions a number of times, both before and since, and actually 2/7 of the active "one-way interaction ban"s currently logged at WP:RESTRICT were placed by ArbCom (one was voluntary, and the other four community-imposed). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one way. We've been here enough times, as admins who patrol the drama boards will recall, and it's time to give it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way - I sympathize with complaints regarding vested contributors being allowed to ignore WP:CIVIL. Witnessing such events as a newer editor really affected me deeply, and were what motivated me to become a positive force in WP:WQA, WP:AAU, RFA reform, which directly led to me becoming an administrator. For a long time, I memorialized many of these people who had fallen victim to such behavior on my talk page, enshrining their otherwise-futile expressions of pain. So, I hear AD's accusation, because it really speaks to me directly. WP:CIVIL is important. It's a pillar of Wikipedia. But the evidence simply doesn't support the allegations. I'm not seeing it. Neither is anyone else. AD's complaint is entirely inactionable, and the continued disbelief that no one else can see the problem is unreasonable. @Purplebackpack89: your view doesn't add up. A two-way IBAN separates users who can't get along with one another. A one-way IBAN prevents one user from harassing another user who isn't at fault. Are you claiming Jytdog is in the wrong here? Swarm ♠ 21:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Jytdog in the wrong here? Do you think that his AfD comments are acceptable? Do you think that it's acceptable for him to berate other editors like that for ignoring flawed articles, but then when someone does start working on it, to simply revert and template them? No, it is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been here long enough to know that we don't police curse words and we don't punish venting. Yes, it's uncivil, as it is to template a regular. Are those actionable offenses? Not remotely. Swarm ♠ 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not edits, content. It was an advert. It is vastly better now. [39]. None of those prior edits were by Andy Dingley, who has made only 2 edits in the decade I've checked. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Do you honestly condone the use of the phrase "dogshit" to describe content when confronting an editor who added it? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't "add it". Please stop claiming text that was written by others as your own, as you have done far too many times throughout this thread. You showed up to the article immediately after he removed it, and re-added it, with the apparent intention of provoking an incident and opening an ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the diffs. They do not mention any person. They correctly identify this article as the target of long-term promotional editing and blatant woo. Feel free to cite any example where Jytdog specifically attacks Andy Dingley or an individual identified edit or series of edits by Andy. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, they weren't "confronting an editor", they were presenting evidence of that editor's terrible editing at WP:ANI. Incidentally, they added Red wine to their category "Health drinks" and it's still there (well, for the next 15 seconds or so). Whilst I wouldn't use the word "dogshit" myself, I can think of plenty of other pejoratives that would describe it. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here they did angrily confront an editor with profanity[40], it was a problematic editor, but I still think "You are the guy who leaves dog shit on the sidewalk. You are that guy". is a bit personal, and there is no reason a final warning template needs to start with "Knock it the hell off." Tornado chaser (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tornado chaser: Bringing up unrelated discussions involving Jytdog comes across as just trying to smear him for the hell of it. If you took even the ten minutes to look at the context like I did, you would have noticed that Jytdog was being extremely patient with an editor who had violated an unblock condition dozens of times. BP shouldn't even be editing here at all, so talking about addressing them with "profanity" (and "shit" and "hell" are pretty mild compared with what I've seen some editors get away with) is ... not right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • cite any example where Jytdog specifically attacks Andy Dingley
    Jytdog has been doing this for years. Look at the ANI thread on Berylliosis. He even filed an SPI on me, describing it as "It feels weird to file this", shortly after he'd stated at ANI that he wouldn't file an SPI on me as it would be ridiculuous. He even awarded me a "Moron Diploma". This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around, because he gets to be just as angry with it, but it's clearly not actionable at ANI if he does it more generally. So please don't say, "Jytdog doesn't attack other editors".
    Also, the whole reason that this thread was posted was because he claimed of other editors not getting involved with editing an article, then when they do (or just when I do so) he summarily reverts the lot and issues a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, that thread, yet another example of your hounding and policing Jytdog, reflects far worse on you than on Jytdog, as the consensus reveals. Also, there is no stricture on filing an SPI. You just said "This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around", so apparently Jytdog is not allowed to use that term but you are? Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no stricture on filing an SPI. Yes, there is. A bogus SPI is an obvious form of harassment, which is why we require so much evidence to support them. In this particular case, there was a reasonable case (although failing at SPI) for investigating a couple of new accounts, no reason at all to hang them on my name.
    I apologise if my quoting of Jytdog's phrasing has offended your sensibilities, but I don't have your talent for polite euphemism and I see no way to discuss his phrasing (and why it's a problem) other than (unfortunately) by quoting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please (1) indicate the policy which states a stricture on filing an SPI; (2) provide proof that the SPI was "bogus". It was supported by Cirt, resulted in a block of Milligansuncle by JzG, and was CUed by Mike V, who closed as "Unlikely". The sentence of yours I quoted (This weeks he's flinging generalised dogshit around) was not you quoting Jytdog, it was you calling his comments "generalised dogshit". Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite those interested to read the SPI itself. It was closed by MikeV, with no provable action as it was Unrelated and Unlikely. But JzG blocked anyway, with the comment A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who. - an interesting response to the SPI. As stated already, I don't have a problem with Jytdog opening an SPI on a number of new accounts, I do object to him filing it in my name. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read it. The fact that CU was performed at all (a rather high bar for SPI to pass) is evidence that Jytdog was acting in good faith, that there was significant behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry, and that someone else agreed as much. Also, the SPI dates to April 2016! Your still holding a grudge (or pretending to still hold a grudge) against someone for a good-faith procedural action they took the better part of three years ago is a pretty clear indication that you are not acting in good faith now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged, the comment of David Tornheim’s that I removed was a violation of their GMO topic ban where a lot of that ban was due to battleground behavior directed towards Jytdog and other editors. It looks like that same following around is being continued at this ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way Obviously Jytdog didn't do anything sanctionable here; neutral on whether a one-way IBAN or some other sanction against Andy would be better. However, I'm wondering if we're missing the forest for the trees here: Andrew Davidson and other "keepist" editors shooting down a theoretically valid AFD with off-topic notability arguments, sometimes even specifically mentioning WP:ATD, then attempting to prevent to prevent non-deletion solutions being implemented by the AFD nom, apparently as "revenge", is a much bigger problem, IMO. This is a recurring, massive problem: see the mess Andrew Davidson caused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture for perhaps the worst historical example, where he shot down the AFD with an off-topic "notability" rationale, based on sources he clearly hadn't read, and then didn't lift a finger to hem the disruption his AFD behaviour caused once the discussion was closed. I was seriously hoping the "keepists" would prove Jytdog's statement at AFD that not a single one of the !voters here w[ould] clean up this dogshit, but this ANI thread and the statements of all the disruptive "keepists" and hounds have sadly proven him right. Also, I'm annoyed that no one notified me of this discussion, given that the notification to Jytdog was explicitly posted in a talk page section I opened specifically about the potential danger of editors coming along and mass-reverting Jytdog while citing the AFD "consensus" as an excuse.
    Also support TBAN on XFD for Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) per the above. I don't think it will happen at this point, but it definitely should soon. See also other recent disruption, such as deliberately disguising a cat-link to look like an article on a similar topic (in an Indian topic, an area Bishonen (talk · contribs) not long ago told him he would be TBANned from if he didn't stop his disruptive behaviour).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way Those of us doomed to be long-term ANI watchers know that enough is enough and the policing has to stop. Someone else will notice if Jytdog is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose one-way ban. Wikipedia must be even handed. I could support a two-way ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose 1 way I Ban on principle. "I can talk to or about you, but you cannot mention my name" has never worked for me. A two way I Ban would be acceptable with the caveat that when being logged a statement is included to the effect that in the case of Jytdog, it is not a sanction but purely an administrative part of the sanction imposed on AD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: I'm sympathetic to your argument, but in my (EXTENSIVE) experience two-way IBANs in cases of one-way disruption (which this is) have a much more blatant history of (and potential for) being gamed than one-way IBANs on the mere point of principle that "I can talk to or about you, but you cannot mention my name" doesn't work. I would not be opposed to Jytdog being warned that "poking the bear" by discussing Andy inappropriately could result in sanctions for him, as I was warned to in the Tristan noir incident (yes, that wording in the restriction was on occasion gamed in subsequent years by assholes who were harassing me, but we don't assume that will be a significant issue off the bat; if editors inclined to hound Jytdog, like, for example, Andrew Davidson or David Tornheim, neither of whom are regular contributors to ANI, tried to game it, we should just block or otherwise sanction them). And @Jytdog: That would not be a slight against you as long as the filing admin was legit uninvolved and didn't use wording that implied you had done or would do such things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, an alternative sanction on Andy (an XFD TBAN?) would also be acceptable, per my own !vote further up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • an XFD TBAN? What possible justification do you have for that? Are you aware that I hadn't even see the Yakult AfD, let alone commented on it? So why even bring up an XfD TBAN?? Either justify that, or it just looks like flinging mud for the sake of it! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea; but your recent disruptive hounding/autorevert action was a clear response to the AFD. If you can think of another one-way sanction against yourself that would be more appropriate, I'd be glad to consider it. (Note that I didn't actually propose an XFD TBAN above; you appear to just be seeing what you want to see.)
    Also (I just noticed this): Jytdog is already the beneficiary of a one-way IBAN against another editor who apparently hounded them.[41] Yeah, it would be nice if the community was consistent one way (no pun intended) or the other on whether one-way IBANs were a thing, but I don't think !voting based on the assumption that they shouldn't be, when they clearly are, is a good idea. (Yes, I have done this myself in the past, but subsequent events, some involving me directly but most just the result of me spontaneously noticing the existence of one-way IBANs unrelated to myself, have change my mind on this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're unwilling to support a one-way IBAN, unless it's specifically framed as a two way IBAN in which one party is only included as a formality? In other words, you agree that AD is worthy of the sanction, but you also want to procedurally sanction Jyt, in spite the fact that he had done nothing to warrant a sanction, for no other reason than to satisfy your own personal principles? Really? If that's really the case, than you should probably reconsider your principles... Swarm ♠ 02:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way IBan against Andy Dingley towards Jytdog. The community has wasted too much time and energy on this feud. Andy Dingley was duly warned that this would probably be the next step at the time of his last block. It's time to enact the IBan as described, so we don't end up back here yet again, wasting more time and energy. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one way IBan Having read through this whole sorry saga and followed the links, there is as clear a justification for a one way IBan as I have seen. Jytdog is doing valuable work and the complained about comments were not personal attacks by any means. Andy dingley needs to stop this. - Nick Thorne talk 03:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "does valuable work" - agreed. But does that valuable work extend to:
    • Complain that no-one else will work on an article, and throwing terms like dogshit at the general editor community to do so.
    • When someone does start, summarily revert them.
    • Template them with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning?
    Yes, he does valuable work. But he's also abusive to editors he doesn't like. That's what he did here, that's what this thread is about. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But none of the diffs you have provided show any personal attack by Jytdog. Their comments have quite rightly been about content, not other editors. Sure they may have used robust language, but far worse is used every day on Wikipedia without comment. You may not like a particular piece of content being described is "dogshit" but are you seriously going to try and defend the use of our articles as blatant advertising puff pieces for commercial interests? I can think of far worse ways of describing such material. The simple fact is that the diffs you have provided and even your comments on this very thread show that you are not prepared to abide by the no personal attacks policy on Wikipedia when it comes to Jytdog. It is more than obvious that you have been hounding them and nothing they have done justifies your repeated attacks on them. Keep this up after the inevitable IBan and you may find your self being indeffed. A word to the wise. - Nick Thorne talk 10:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: Jytdog was right to complain that none of the "keepist" editors who shut down his Yakult AFD would lift a finger to fix the article, as none of them did (hardly any of them ever do). Personally I think the worst thing Jytdog did, something for which I forgave him immediately when he apologized, was lump me in with those editors. Honestly, given the timing of your jumping in and reverting him (having not contributed to the AFD discussion) and your specifically posting the notification of this ANI discussion in my thread on his talk page, it looks like you saw my (not angry or "you should be sanctioned for this") criticism of what Jytdog said, and decided to jump on it.
    And your complaining (below) that "But no-one does [police Jytdog]" is awfully hypocritical in light of your saying he's not allowed complain that no one does the heavy lifting to fix these articles. Neither did you "start to work on the article" nor did he "summarily revert you"; you summarily reverted him, without doing any work. (And your referring to yourself in the third person here does not help the situation.)
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog's complaint that "no-one helps with these articles" carries no weight, when the first thing he does afterwards is to revert someone who does just that. Comments like Oh User:Chiswick Chap removed a couple of specks of shit. Goody for them. are really not acceptable too (I see that as a clear and personally targeted CIVIL breach, but few others seem to).
    I note that I'm only one of at least four complaining of his phrasing here: User talk:Jytdog#Yakult / User talk:Jytdog#Incivility. Strangely, one of them was you. So whay are you now calling for me to be banned from XfD? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But you didn't "do just that": you auto-reverted him because you don't like him.
    You are misquoting and misrepresenting the views of other editors to suit your anti-Jytdog harassment agenda. Nothing I said was meant to imply I wanted sanctions brought against him, and I rightly accepted his immediate and clearly sincere apology. As you should have.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 1 way, support 2 way this stems less from my support toward on or the other of the people involved in the ban and more from the fact that I do not think a 1-way ban should be employed against two autoconfirmed/extended rights users. I can see where 1 way Ibans would work in cases where an enexperienced user is trolling the talk page of another user, for example - but in this case where experienced users are comcefened a 2 way ban is fairer and probably more effective at solving the issue. Suggest expiration after a reasonable period. Edaham (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edaham: Per my reply to AO above, it's probably not a good idea to support or oppose sanctions based on a principle that is not uniformly observed across the project. Even though it's clearly not your intent, opposing a one-way IBAN because you don't think one-way IBANs should be a thing while they clearly are, has the (I must stress, unintended) effect of supporting the harasser over the harassee. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Noted. I’ll consider that in future Edaham (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 way Given the blatant PAs and misinterpretations from Andy Dingly despite being warned in the past and given a opportunity to strike them, and the fact that Jytdog's cursing isn't really actionable or causing major disruption, I think some action needs to be taken against Andy Dingly but I don't really like the idea of a one way IBAN, and agree with the above comment that the best way to cool this whole thing off is to just keep the 2 editors apart. I just don't like the idea of telling someone "you can't revert or mention him but he can revert you", this is not to punish Jytdog, just my general dislike of one-way IBANS. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Not going to !vote on this one way or the other, whole thing is just a big mess and I don't really know the history of the issue. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tornado chaser: Per my reply to AO above, it's probably not a good idea to support or oppose sanctions based on a principle that is not uniformly observed across the project. Even though it's clearly not your intent, opposing a one-way IBAN because you don't think one-way IBANs should be a thing while they clearly are, has the (I must stress, unintended) effect of supporting the harasser over the harassee. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way IBan - I am disappointed in Jytdog's intemperance in the incident that provoked this thread, just as I am disappointed by my own intemperance when it occurs, but it does appear to me from the available evidence, and from the behavior apparent in this very thread, that Andy Dingley needs to detach himself from his fixation with Jytdog, which a one-way Iban will help hom to accomplish. There is no evidence that, in general, Jytdog's behavior toward Dingley is such that a two-way ban is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one way IBan-Enough is enough.As any long time drama-board-patroller can attest to, Andy does seem to be too affectionate for Jytdog.And, this needs to stop.And, Jytdog's behaviour, whilst not optimal, rises nowhere to the level of being sanctionable.∯WBGconverse 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way IBAN. I was hesitant to opine on IBAN suggestions yesterday, and in general I'm really not a big fan of one-way IBANs. But having had more time to examine this and think about it, I can only conclude that it would be beneficial in this case. Jytdog does go over the top at times (disappointingly so in some cases, like this one), but I think Cullen says it best: "This project does not need [Andy Dingley] to be Jytdog's police officer". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There seems to be a consensus that Jytdog went too far and they themselves have retracted. Andy Dingley's complaint was therefore valid and worth making. To punish them for this would be unfair. Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, no one cares about this ANI report. The problem is that similar policing has been going on for over two years. An interaction ban is not punishment; it is an acknowledgment that certain behavior is persistent and not helpful for the encyclopedia. Others are welcome to police Jytdog. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, your own behaviour throughout this whole incident (including at the AFD, as well as other AFDs which you should down by citing ATD, then proceeded to prevent the ATD-solutions because they were proposed/implemented by editors you see as "deletionists") has been significantly worse than Jytdog's (and I would argue even Andy's), and your contribution to the discussion will no doubt be judged accordingly. Your claim, if it was made in good faith rather than a wikilawyering trick which you don't yourself believe, that there is a "consensus that Jytdog went too far", which is apparently established by cherry-picking the "Jytdog may have gone a bit too colourful for my tastes" while ignoring the following "but obviously Andy is the much worse offender here, and has been in the long term", shows such a separation from reality on your part that I would wonder how no one has blocked you yet for it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Others are welcome to police Jytdog.
    But no-one does.
    Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If none other than you is any concerned with or affected by Jytdog's behaviour (despite the fact that you are not his sole collaborator), it speaks volumes as to why you shall be one-way-IBanned.Thanks for supporting the cause:-) ∯WBGconverse 10:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least three others posted immediately to User talk:Jytdog#Yakult / User talk:Jytdog#Incivility complaining of his language. It didn't go as far as ANI until he also started reverting and templating me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it was you who sed But no-one does..Best, ∯WBGconverse 12:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, if you misquote or misrepresent me one more time, I will start supporting your being indefinitely blocked as opposed to being subject to a one-way IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I misquoted you? Or even quoted you? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering over the supposed distinction between quoting someone's section title and misrepresenting them as supporting some kind of conclusion and "misquoting them" is not a good look. If you cite my message to Jytdog as supporting a sanction against him one more time, I will request that you be blocked. I accepted his apology, as has almost everyone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. I will play the devil's advocate here to voice concern, as there is emerging consensus for one way interaction ban, and it should probably be implemented after 24 hours or so. I have a feeling that we are punishing Andy Dingley for their behaviour in this thread, particularly in regards to refusing to drop the stick and move on. Is there another example other than the one in 2016 in which Andy targeted Jytdog's contributions? Anyway, Jytdog has apologised and reflected on their edit, and it should have ended there. Andy should be doing the same thing. In a situation like this where it involves two editors I have worked and enjoy working with, I am always trying to look for a way that would give face-saving option for both parties, but I think that ship has sailed unfortunately. While cool-down blocks ideally should never be an option, in Andy's case I think it may be an alternative if they won't simply just walk away. Alex Shih (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We aren't "punishing" Andy Dingley, we are preventing (stopping) his continuing disruption of the past 2.5 years in the form of endless unwarranted "reports" against Jytdog. He has been repeatedly warned, including by administrators, that a one-way IBan would be the next step if he persisted, but as Jytdog and others have noted, Andy Dingley simply can't help himself and routinely erupts in a rampage against Jytdog. You have been away for many long years, but everyone who has been a long-term ANI watcher has seen this unfold over the years and is understandably sick of it and the time-sink and energy-sink it entails. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is Jytdog allowed to file fake SPIs on me and nothing is done about it?
    routinely erupts in a rampage against Jytdog. - for which you have to dredge up a thread from two years ago, the one where Jytdog got his damage to an article into two separate off-wiki media sites! And yet you still portray Jytdog as blameless in everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no stricture against filing an SPI. If it had been deemed unwarranted or "fake" it would have been thrown out. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I am presenting an perspective from someone unfamiliar with the history. I tried to search through the archives, and these are some of the relevant discussions I have found from the first three pages ([42][43][44][45][46]). The point I am trying to make is that sometimes impressions of a situation are not necessary consistent with empirical evidence; from my rather limited reading through some of the past interaction history (which I will admit that is going to lack a lot of the context), it appears that Jytdog and Andy Dingley had ongoing disputes back in March – April 2016 (noted by both parties), for the most part largely avoided each other before running into disputes again in March 2017 (in which both parties were not blameless). In the meanwhile, Andy occasionally takes a shot at Jytdog as recent as November 2017. On the other hand, Jytdog has promised on many occasions to adjust their aggressive editing approach, but continues to have occasional outbursts that are not always focused on content alone. Obviously, I will reiterate that there is nothing sanctionable here for Jytdog, but still I think it is worthwhile to express this thought on the inevitable outcome of this thread. While one-way interaction against Andy Dingley and even a short block is fully justified here, I think by doing so there is too much weight being put on Andy Dingley (their own fault, of course), and perhaps this was also the sentiment I got from Ad Orientem's oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for listing my various crimes and misdemeanours:
    1. Berylliosis – a long thread (you point to just one section) where I first encounter Jytdog and complain about him causing serious inaccuracies to two articles and dismisses other editors for writing ""Garbage content based on garbage sources".
    2. [47] – a complaint about Jytdog, by another party. I make one comment, then described as "Andy gets at basic point here."
    3. Incivility and use of profanity by user Jytdog – another complaint about Jytdog, by another party.
    4. Andy_Dingley – a simple edit-warring content diispute, in which Jytdog isn't involved and I didn't even get notified until after it was closed.
    5. User Jytdog jumps the gun – yet again, another unrelated editor complains of bullying by Jytdog.
    And on this basis, you want to block me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppoose: This proposal is basically saying that Jytdog (and presumably any other vested editor who has a sufficiently big fanbase at ANI) can do whatever they want, and anyone who complains about it will get punished, and the original attacks applauded.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nigel Ish, please demonstrate how anyone supporting this IBan is in any way part of a "fanbase" of Jytdog (please name names and provide supporting evidence). Please also demonstrate or explain how it means that Jytdog "can do whatever they want". Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • What we have here is a demonstration of someone who has at least a reasonably valid complaint against a long term editor being punished for the complaint, with the issues raised being swept under the carpet. If someone had raised similar complaints against an editor who had just scraped past autoconfirmed had made the comments that Jytdog had made then they would be blocked and banned so quickly that if you blinked you would miss it. If I made those comments, I'm pretty certain that it would not be tolerated. Why should some editors be treated differently - Unless stuff like civility is enforced levelly across the community and is seen to be, then it is clear that ANI is failing.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • In other words, you have no proof whatsoever for your claims. Bringing a longterm editor to ANI for merely calling a grossly promotional article about a product making wild scientific claims (this is how the article looked when he nominated it) "a pile dogshit on the sidewalk" and lamenting that none of the Keep !voters would clean the article up is an utter waste of community time and energy. Jytdog's mini-rant was not a personal attack and was no different than saying something is crap or a crappy article, although it's more colorful. This ANI thread is once again shaping up to be another endless timesink of the sort Andy Dingley is getting the proposal of the IBan for. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish:: On the contrary, it looks like this is a case of "un-fans" of Jytdog, like Andrew Davidson and David Tornheim, and possibly fans of Andy Dingley, against almost everyone else on ANI. (This assumes that those like AO saying "what Andy did is bad, but so are one-way IBANs" and those like Alex who are believe this hasn't, or shouldn't have, gotten to the point of sanctions, either do not count as being on one "side" or the other, or are part of Jytdog's "fanbase" as you call it because they agree that Andy is the one at fault here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as I (and anyone else who disagrees with the interaction ban and any other form of punishment that gets dreamt up here) appear to be labelled as an "un-fan" of Jytog and a fan of Andy Dingley without any sort of proof or justification, it is clear that disagreement with the ban will not be tolerated and that contrary opinion is unwelcome. As I do not wish to be subject to attack or sanction, I will withdraw from this discussion as my presence clearly isn't welcome by editors like user:Softlavender and user:Hijiri88.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "label" you anything, and even if I had it would have been as either a fan of AD or an un-fan of Jytdog. You, rather, labelled me (and almost all the other uninvolved editors here) as "fans of Jytdog", and have refused to withdraw said baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose: Andy's original complaint here was reasonable albeit misjudged for him to bother making it. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per the excellent points Alex brought up. At some point, Jytdog needs to actually start following through on their pledges to be less aggressive in their editing approach. I have no doubts about the good faith of Jytdog - he means well, and he wants the best interests of wikipedia, but his approach is not always good or helpful and at some point, we need to get through to him that he actually needs to improve rather than overstepping and then retracting things. Yes, he retracted his comments in the AfD, but... shouldn't the previous warnings he's supposedly taken on board mean something? Please, Jytdog, take this advice in the spirit it is meant - think more before you post. Read and reread anything that is at all inflamatory and think three times before you post. That would hopefully help you avoid these situations. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support- I'm really not a fan of one-way IBANS. But there's been a long term pattern of behaviour where Andy Dingley decides he doesn't like someone, and then follows them around to dob them in at ANI over trivialities, again and again and again and again and again. This proposal will put an end to the disruption, at least until Dingley picks someone else to campaign against. Reyk YO! 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: That template was placed by Jytdog after Andy pointedly followed them to an article and reverted their edit without proper justification, apparently after having read my message to Jytdog that if anyone tried that he would have a case for complaint. AD manufactured his whole incident, with the intention of getting back at Jytdog for the "fake SPI" he's mentioned about a half dozen times in this thread, back in 2016. Andy provoked Jytdog, because he's still holding a grudge over something that happened years ago; Jytdog did nothing to provoke Andy; and the editors who were actually inappropriately targeted by Jytdog's "colourful" language, myself included, all agree on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    colourful shit from dog. Dog shit.Govindaharihari (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govindaharihari: I haven't seen anything Jytdog has said that even approached "colourful shit from dog". His having "dog" as part of his username does not remotedly justify you calling him a dog! You should retract and apologize for the above immediately, and request an admin remove the edit summary from popublic view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    dog and shit is repeated by the user multiple times. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? I don't support Govindaharihari's phrasing here but His having "dog" as part of his username does not remotedly justify you calling him a dog! is a remarkably obtuse loss of memory over Jytdog's own comments (they're quoted at the start of this thread to refresh your memory). Do you really expect anyone to believe your claim here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not simpy "revert their edit". Please strike your whole section here, where you claim to read my mind and establish (incorrect) motives for all of it.
    My only edit is here. If this was in reaction to Jytdog, it was purely to refute his claim (and specific request) that other editors would be nothing to work on this article. I still stand by that edit: this is an article on a milk product and its nutritional claims (true or false) are where we have to start: so the article needs that (and as you might alo see, I recognise that the section needs to be worked on). Jytdog won't permit this though, and he simply reverted the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog removed the "Nutritional information" section here, and you re-added it, word for word, here. Your edit summary was explicit that "restoring" it to before Jytdog's edit was your intention, and your version being identical to the one Jytdog had blanked is made obvious by this diff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a one-way interaction ban. It takes two to tango, and the one-way ban does not seem to be entirely equitable at this time. That said, I would recommend that Andy Dingley simply avoid Jytdog for some time, and vice versa. North America1000 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northamerica1000: Do you have evidence that Jytdog hasn't been avoiding Andy? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've logged my overall opinion at this time after considering this matter. Hijiri, after going through this thread again, you seem to be awfully enthusiastic about only having Dingley banned from speaking, to the point that I am a bit concerned about just how eager you are regarding the matter. You've also added a comment proposing an XfD topic ban for another user above, which is out of process relative to the general thesis of the discussion. Perhaps consider taking a break for a short time, allowing other users to opine without immediate interjections, interrogations and side nominations to immediately also ban other users you do not appear to get along with. North America1000 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Northamerica1000, I would appreciate a reply as to Hijiri's query.Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll answer this one, which is in this very thread but has been buried by the way this discussion went. Jytdog is fully aware and conscious of their history (as expressed above) with Andy Dingley; Andy did not make an edit, bur rather restored part of the information in Yakult removed by Jytdog with this edit; a good edit? Probably not, but it was neither a revert nor was it done without thinking. Jytdog proceeded to remove the entire section restored in the next three edits (practically a revert, but it was done with reasonable editorial oversight, so there is no problem here) while making this template warning during the process. When you examine separate actions, they are not particularly problematic on their own. But when you take the context into consideration, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template (being complained by Andy) warning can feel awfully like an baiting attempt (which I am certain is not Jytdog's intention, rather it was an expression of frustration). I am not defending anything here, but to say that Jytdog has been avoiding Andy is contradictory to this inflammatory interaction alone. Alex Shih (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex Shih, unless I'm missing something, Andy has blown the welcome-template-issue way out of proportion and your comments do not align with my assesment of the situation.
    I personally abide by WP:DTTR, (as a matter of etiquette and especially, to not seem patronizing) but it's not any policy or guideline or even a supplement.The first level of user-warnings about Original-research includes a short welcome-message and Jytdog didn't include the phrase out of his own wish.Whilst a better way would have been to leave a customized message, I do not fault him.
    Other than Andy's general affection for Jytdog, I do not see a single reason for Andy to land at Yakult. And unless and until, anybody has competency problems or an intention of harassment of particular editors, I do not see how this can be included in the first place.
    And, I am frankly appalled that you think Jytdog has not been avoiding Andy.(Unless you mean to state that Jytdog has been wrong about those reverts or he ought to have left them alone.)
    This whole piece of mess started because of Andy (and only Andy) and he ought be the sole one who shall be at the receiving end of any sanction. ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you follow DTTR, it's a good idea. But it's not the main problem here (as I've said repeatedly, it's the reversion and OWNership implied by it).
    Why was I at this article but not the AfD? Because I drink Yakult. Yet this seems to be a surprising idea: when I pointed out that I was a vegetarian, thus interested in vat-grown meat stories he accused me of being part of a paid editing group (which he later had to strike). Yes, I admit it, I eat food and I drink milk. I even watchlist articles about those products. Unfortunately I missed the AfD listing for Yakult and didn't see it until the close message on the article.
    As to whether my edit at Yakult was a good edit or not, then no it wasn't - but it was a good faith edit, and that's all that matters. We have to start somewhere, then we work to improve on that. We do so as a group, and I still believe that Jytdog is antithetical to such an approach, favouring instead heroic efforts by a single editor. Does the UK Food Standards Agency ref [48] belong there? Yes, of course it does. As Jytdog points out, it doesn't even mention Yakult. But what it does do is to define the UK government's benchmark for when something becomes a "high sugar" food, which is highly relevant to this section. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: You appear to be missing something about Andy's edit to the Yakult article, as it clearly was a revert, per my breakdown here. Andy's claim above that he just happened across the article and decided to edit it because he drinks Yakult, mere hours after Jytdog had edited it, is clearly untenable, and the fact that he has been going on and on and on about very old disputes he has had with Jytdog in the past (Ctrl+F this thread for "fake SPI") appears to be a better indicator of the actual reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Misread your comment. I take a "revert" as being an edit that undoes all or part of another editor's edit, or restores all or part of a previous version of an article. This is, I believe, a fairly common interpretation, and the one that lies behind 3RR, 1RR and 0RR, and even if we are to have a good-faith disagreement over whether it is appropriate in this case to describe Andy's edit as a "revert", it is definitely bad form for Andy to have been arguing constantly that it was not a revert but a new edit intended to improve the article, of the kind Jytdog had said would not be forthcoming from the "keep" !votes in the AFD. He has repeatedly claimed that it was inappropriate for Jytdog to say at the AFD that no one would lift a finger to improve the article and then revert Andy's own attempts to improve the article, a claim which assumes that Andy's own edit was not itself a revert of Jytdog's improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northamerica1000: I will take the advice you give in your last sentence, although I must admit that I was a little surprised when I asked you a civil, reasonable question in response to something you had said that didn't make a whole lot of sense, you replied not by answering my question but by jumping down my throat about something completely unrelated. My involvement in this discussion has been in good faith, and it is extremely poor form to respond to a valid question the way you did. (And while it has absolutely zero relationship to my concern about your comment, I should clarify that I do not consider my suggestion that another editor face sanctions for their disruptive commentary in this thread and in the preceding AFD to be "out of process relative to the general thesis of the discussion", whatever that means.) I do not wish to have a drawn out discussion, so I'll leave you to dwell on this while I go back to building the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to mention the Yakult article, but enough has been said above. North America1000 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can the explicitly partisant claim by NA1000 that Jytdog shares equal blame here be equated with Alex's explicit statement that he is playing devil's advocate? Did you even read either of the comments you are citing, or are you just !voting the way you already wanted to and citing the names of the two most esteemed editors who technically !voted the same but for mutually conflicting reasons? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My commentary is not partisan. It's my opinion regarding the overall matter. Enough already. North America1000 05:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban. As usual, Bishonen gets it right. Jytdog overreacted, especially in bring the AFD -- for God's sake, AFD is NOT clean-up nor a reason to vent your loathing of a subject -- but this is just the latest in Andy Dingley's long-term harassment campaign against Jytdog. Whatever Jytdog has done has fuck-all to do the reason for an interaction ban, whatever wahtaboutisms people bring up. And the less said about the religious dogma of "one-way I-bans don't work", the better. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The OP's complaint was reasonable and warranted. Civility is for everyone. There are no exemptions for editors with pals among admins and ANI regulars. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Coretheapple please note this proposal is not just for the breach of Civility. your comment is oversimplifying the whole issue. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty simple. User was warned to clean up his language. He hasn't. The remedy is an appropriate block for incivility. Boomerang is designed for situations in which the OP has brought a meritless accusation, but this has merit. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • support. obviously. User:Alex Shih and User:Ad Orientem, I have refrained from commenting much here, but as I respect each of you, I want to explain to you why I have requested the IBAN. Andy does harm when he does this thing - when he follows me to some page and jumps in against me, and then follows up at a drama board. There are two main reasons, laid out in the hatted section below. The first is the harm to content and discussion where he does this. The second are his persistent misrepresentations which are unacceptable behavior per WP:TPNO. Also, if anyone here thinks the OP is actionable, that is still open, and you are free to seek action with respect to that. But Andy opened himself to this by opening this thread, per BOOMERANG and this is a legitimate discussion. I had warned Andy against filing this here, fwiw.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    why
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    1) He exacerbates the content and interpersonal issues at the page where he does this stuff; doing active harm there. 2) he makes misrepresentations as he goes which is harmful (and thus defined as "unacceptable" at WP:TPNO).

    on 1)
    • as I said in my first diff, when Andy followed me to the dispute at Yakult, he edited badly, restoring policy-violating content from the history, including the dead links that were part of that content and content that is OR and SYN. It is was obviously WP:POINTY in the pure sense of that term. It is obvious that he followed me there, as he had done before as diffed below, and as pointed out by Softlavender here. Andy himself has cited the threads on my talk page that he saw in this diff as well as this diff.
    • as i laid out here (third time this diff has been brought; my apologies, but I will now recapitulate it here), he:
    originally got angry with me over the RepRap project kerfluffle that was blogged about off-wiki in March 2016 (see that wonderfully titled ANI thread Rude vulgarian editor where Andy latched on) That case involved an SPI into the filer CaptainYuge (here) who was found to have an alt account, used legitimately, but was not running the disruptive account that was mentioned there.
    Around that same time, two (!) people unrelated to RepRap or Andy started a sock-driven harassment campaign against me and some other folks, which were (after a big mess of sorting) were filed under Renameduser024 and Biscuittin. Biscuittin played games with some of their many socks, and in one of them, did some things that made them look just like Andy, which led to the SPI here that Andy still complains about.
    Andy later interfered with the SPIs into Biscuittin, disrupting efforts to deal with that socking harassment (their contribs, removal of some by an SPI admin)
    in March 2016 Andy took to harassing me at the Berylliosis Talk page, writing (among other things) this where he led in with : How did your "disparage every editor and every source, despite knowing nothing about the subject" strategy work for you on RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Wikipedia this time round? and went on from there with similar remarks, which I warned him about per this and this, and you can see other links there.
    their edit at Berylliosis was this edit, restoring a source that violates WP:USERGENERATED. This is exactly parallel to what he did at Yakult, making a bad edit to make a POINT.
    In April I launched an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro - Andy was the first to !vote (against the nomination, of course) and was out of sync with the community again. He had never edited the article before - This is really obvious and active stalking)
    In April he did this pure trolling of me, on the Talk page of a paid editor.
    In Oct 2016 after this notice was left on my talk page, Andy, who had never edited the article, interjected himself into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth with this Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. and this comment. (article was gotten rid of via the AfD)
    In November, after an advocate who was edit warring promotional, COPYVIO content into an article about a law school left retaliatory note on my page, Andy jumped into the EWN discussion with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand here I warned them about that here and he was blocked for 31 hours over that, (block notice).
    In March 2017 i was in midst of working to remove advocacy from another article related to effective altruism (these pages had been heavily worked on by the Vipul paid editing entreprise, which is completely unrelated to Andy but which i was starting to clean up after), and was working with two editors with a history of EA advocacy editing (as you can see from their contribs (here for Utsill and here for Kbog) were arguing to keep it. One of the two, Utsill, left a notice on my talk page. And Andy, who had never before edited the article or its talk page (user-search at article, user-search at talk page) jumped in and of course included commentary directed at me, like this. Andy's action here was particularly galling, because a) Kbog, who is becoming reasonable, had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in and blew it up; and b) this only inflamed Utsill, who was especially strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article.

    Every one of those (except the SPI I filed, which was provoked by a sneaky sock spoofing Andy), was initiated by Andy following me and doing pointy things.

    on 2), just in this discussion he has
    • misrepresented his own involvement. He characterizes what he did at Yakult as some kind of innocent thing:
    afterwards when I start work on the cleanup (diff) or
    when someone does start working on it, to simply revert and template them? (diff),
    When someone does start, summarily revert them. (diff)
    or as personalized against him So why is Jytdog choosing to revert me specifically? Funny that. diff) But he's also abusive to editors he doesn't like. (diff)
    but it is very obvious he followed me there, which is his old pattern, as described above. And his edit was bad, as is clear from looking at it. Had nothing to do with him, but with the edit.
    • Misrepresented my remark quoted at the top of this thread in his 1st comment (diff) and several since (diff, as attacks on other editors, which, as several people have pointed out (diff, diff, diff) is not a personal attack (overly harsh criticism of edits and behavior, for sure, but not personal attacks)
    • Misrepresented me completely with Jytdog's complaint that "no-one helps with these articles" (diff). I have never said that. He provides no diff.
    • Misrepresented what I have done since, with Then when other editors do start to show an interest in working on it, they're abused, reverted, berated at their own talk (diff) and reflex-reverting anyone else who gets involved in "his" article. (diff No diffs for that. No one else sees that, because it didn't happen. As was pointed out here.
    • Misrepresented the OR notice I left on their talk page as a "welcome to Wikipedia" notice. (diff), ([(diff)
    • Misrepresented what happened at the Beryliosis page (which was about berylium poisoning, a medical issue, not "metallurgy" as they said here: hiding behind MEDRS on utterly irelevant topics (metallurgy?)
    • Misrepresented this ANI thread as the ANI posting where Jytdog conflated me with a claimed paid editor then had to come back and edit his first posting, then strike it altogether? Again, classic Jytdog behaviour - make some sweeping accusation, then if it's challenged, withdraw it and pretend it never happened (diff) I did strike the beginning as it was just badly written, and restated it at the bottom. I did not withdraw it.
    • Misrepresented the SPI I filed against him as a false SPIs (diff, diff, diff) or fake SPIs (diff) or fatuous SPIs (diff). I had explained what was up with that SPI [here here]. To say it yet again... The "milligansunce" account was a sock; it was claimed by a sock of the sockmaster Biscuittin here. Biscuittin was a particularly sneaky sockmaster who actually made their edits look like Andy's to cause disruption, and generally wasted a ton of people's time before they got bored with playing games. (cases are archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biscuittin/Archive; those overlapped in time with another angry, hounding, socking person who cases are archived at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024/Archive. That was a difficult time. Andy saw all that, as he disrupted those SPIs, but he still mischaracterizes what was going on at that time.
    • Misrepresented my GMO topic ban: the self-appointed guardian of COI, despite having a huge one of his own (and a topic ban from GMO as a result) but too secret for mere mortals to know about it. diff). What is he even talking about with "too secret for mere mortals" business? I have no idea.)
    In my view, misrepresentations are corrosive with respect to good faith discussion of issues everywhere in WP. I would normally be seeking a block for this sort of thing, but the IBAN will prevent further disruption, at least with respect to me.
    also
    The actual personal attacks he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot. (diff, repeated instead of struck when called on it) and bludgeoning this discussion (28 substantial diffs as of now).

    He has been quiet since his block and warning, but his actions at Yakult and his behavior at this thread are the same behavior as before. fwiw, I tried to say something nice to him last summer in the hope of starting to build a relationship. (diff)

    So yes, I would like an IBAN and in my view it is well justified. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you, Jytdog. This is detailed and informative, which provides a clear timeline more so than majority of this thread. I have already expressed that one-way interaction ban would be justified, but I have reservations on different grounds. If the end results would be the same, I see no strong reason on why we cannot have a two-way interaction ban. In this case, Jytdog can move on, while Andy has been admonished extensively that any similar editing conduct in the near future would probably result in sanctions. Those who are interested in the nature that led to the interaction ban can see the link to this discussion, and make their own judgement (which, if it is as clear as indicated, shouldn't present a negative light). Alex Shih (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-way, and oppose one-way (partly on principle and partly because I don't see much downside to making it two-way). I feel that I also need to point out: [49] (and [50]), which pushed me over the line into supporting an IBAN here. It's hardly a good indicator of what will happen without an IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose as there is no reason why Jytdog cannot just clean up his act, leaving AD with nothing to complain about. After all, if someone on the other side of this content dispute were to edit this way, he would be declared "WP:NOTHERE" and summarily blocked. I don't talk like that anyway, but I think if I did, I would regularly be on the wrong side of AN/I sections. And I say this as someone who tends to come down against this sort of article. Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to overlooked the years of harassment by AD. I see no indication -- none -- that he will stop his campaign short of being forced to to. Then there's the whole question-begging about the act that Jytdog is supposed to be cleaning up. --Calton | Talk 19:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per all the oppose !votes preceding my own. If there truly is a long-standing feud between the two editors as someone pointed out above, then it takes two to tango and the iban should be for each of them. There's no love lost between me and Andy Dingley, but this seems wholly unfair, partisan, and punitive in spirit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term addition of unsourced content and original research

    Plot sections are a magnet for this sort of junk editing by youthful contributors, but there are limits, methinks. Persistent addition of unsourced content and original research, without regard to numerous warnings, or apparent interest in guidelines. See edit history and deleted warnings. Originally I reported this at AiV, and was directed here. JNW (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Could this be a Bambifan101 sock? Blackmane (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user for one week for persistent addition of unreferenced content and original research. Any admin is welcome to extend or remove the block without my prior approval; just let me know on my user talk page what you did and why. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Query on reverts on an article

    Moved from WP:AN3

    Can any uninvolved admin have a look at Talk:The House of Fine Art & User talk:Accesscrawl#Vandalistic edit?. The page creator twice restored all of the removed user-generated/redundant sources without any explanation, although I've explained each of my edits clearly. And now they are not responding at the article's talk page in spite of my repeated requests at their talk page. I just want explanation from them for their unexplained disruptive edits, so that I can continue the cleanup of the article. BTW, I don't know about the correct forum for this sort of request, so my apologies in advance. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't a 3RR violation by either party. There's a valid question about quality of sources, and the community sanctions at WP:GS/Crypto might apply. Still, the currently open AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art might be a good place to discuss the quality of sources. In my opinion there isn't a need for admin intervention. NitinMlk should stop using the term vandalism to refer to edits by Accesscrawl. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time they restoted the unser-generated/redundant sources, along with reverting my valid formatting of the citations, I thought it was a good-faith mistake, as I mentioned in my relevant edit summary. But even after clearly explaining them regarding my edits & providing links to the detailed article's talk page explanations, they again reverted my all edits without explaination, which looked vandalistic in nature to me at that moment, although I guess those edits were unconstructive or desruptive in nature. Anyway, I just want them to disucss their issues at the talk page, if they have any. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Accesscrawl: Do you have a good explanation for this? It looks like you're reverting good faith improvements to an article, which are thoroughly explained on the talk page, without providing any reason. This is a common ownership behavior, and I note that you are the article's creator. WP:BRD is not a reason to revert, it's a basic dispute resolution measure, and it is impossible when the only discussion you're willing to engage in is saying "BRD" and making personal attacks, as you did at User talk:NitinMlk#Hounding. Provide an actual reason for your reverts, or stop reverting. Swarm ♠ 18:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think either editor is behaving well here. One is not engaging in the discussion aspect of bold, revert, discuss, and the other is being borderline hostile, throwing around terms like vandalism when they're not appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my reply to EdJohnston, where I explained regarding the points made by you. I don't known why you termed me as "borderline hostile", when I was the one who patiently waited for around four hours for their reply after they reverted me for the second time, and when they still didn't respond I just logged out without editing the relevant article. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: NitinMlk filed a vexatious SPI (naming Accesscrawl as a suspected sock of obviously unrelated persons) where he is harassing him by falsely alleging him of "paid editing",[51] and now he is apparently badgering an AfD[52] that is completely outside his interests and he is doing it only for reducing the amount of notability of the subject because Accresscrawl created that article. His talk page messages reads like he is engaging in deliberate nitpicking than building a quality article.[53] Now that is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Nitinmlk is not even able to understand what constitutes a "vandalism"[54] even after already being told about "WP:NOTVAND".[55] This misuse of ANI after filing a malformed report on ANEW should be as well noted.[56] Now after being warned by EdJohnston above, he is still referring Accesscrawl's edits as "vandalistic".[57] GenuineArt (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is wrong on so many levels. Did you even read the SPI or the closing comments of the admin who stated: This does not exclude the possibility of meatpuppetry and/or collusion of wiki, as it definitely made a convincing case to check. Also, please read my above reply again. I am not calling their edits as vandalism – I just explained my reaction at that point of time. BTW, I guess this is the first article of them which I've ever edited. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not "reducing the amount of notability of the subject" – I've just removed the blogs & websites which were just copy-pastes of the original cited reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI was frivolous and vexatious. It failed to support your claims. You used SPI for harassing other editors when you made false allegations of paid editing. Apparently you have failed to address that concern. Make it clear now if you really have any evidence that any of those editors including accesscrawl are engaging in paid editing or you were only using these false allegations to belittle them. As for your "reaction", one would find it very hard to believe that an editor editing for 3 years is still not capable of defining what is a vandalism. Can you also justify that why you didn't notified Accesscrawl of ANI or ANEW report? GenuineArt (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    GenuineArt, you are diverting the issue in entirely different direction. Anyaway, as far as paid editing is concerned, multiple editors have questioned them, e.g. see here, although my comment at the SPI was regarding the other user, and it was made in a particular context. In fact, they are very eager to get new page reviewer rights, although that request was declined around four days ago. And as I speak, the other user against whom I filed the SPI is demanding the same rights.

    Now speaking about Accesscrawl, they have uploaded an Iranian architect's high resolution pic, and marked it as their own work, although that was taken by the architect's personal photographer (as clear from the Exif data & architect's official website details), and it still have a pending ORTS. They've also been involved in the page move request of the Rajneesh, which was apparently available as a paid job at the Upword – see User talk:Accesscrawl/Archives/Archive 1#COI_editing. They also created an articles about an obscure German filmaker, an American architect, an Indian ad films director, etc. And now they have created an article about this British gallery.

    Our other interactions are limited to two AfDs, which were noticed by me at the WP:DELSORT/INDIA page, as it is under my watchlist. In fact, it was during one of those AfD's that I noticed the odd editing pattern of the two accounts, and filed an SPI for the same. Other than these three-four interactions, I've been editing in different areas, and will continue to do so. Whole purpose of my these efforts were to save the project from corp spamming.

    Finally, I've no issues regarding their or anyone else creations unless the subjects are non-notable, and I end up noticing an AfD for the same. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting NPR is irrelevant. Access crawl seems to have withdrawn the NPR request than making continuous requests like other user. The incidents you have mentioned dont really approve your allegations. You seem to have adopted a pattern of searching edits of accesscrawl while not bringing anything that would undoubtedly approve any of the allegations that you have been making until now. I really doubt if such approach is not really going to bring anything productive because it will only create more problems. I would instead recommend you to avoid confronting Accesscrawl unless you see any actual unambiguous issues. He created The House of Fine Art and we see that the AfD would result in Keep. You can well avoid the article or simply tone down the rhetoic. We can be assured that the article is in good hands since enough experienced editors like Ritchie333, Sam Sailor have been working on the article. GenuineArt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding not notifying them, these are my first ever edits at the ANI, so that was a genuine mistake. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) (edit conflict) There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the above, if we're assuming good faith. They presented substantial evidence, and the responding admin said they "made a convincing case". So, I'm not not buying the "frivolous and vexatious" angle. Likewise, the "badgering" at AfD was a straightforward, policy-based refutation of one of the "keep" votes. Likewise, the edits to the article in question are clearly explained and reasonably justified. Another admin above says what you describe as "nitpicking" is actually "a valid question about quality of sources". So, at face value, and even beneath the surface, there's nothing wrong with NitinMlk's actions on their own, and yet you're still assuming bad faith. The only actual offense I'm seeing is them mislabeling "disruptive editing" as "vandalism", which also draws attention to to the edits they're referring to, which appear to be a significantly larger offense. So, this can just as easily be interpreted as AC grudging over the SPI. @GenuineArt and Accesscrawl: Please provide your evidence to substantiate the claims of NitinMlk's bad faith motivations, such as "harassment" or "hounding". We need to hear where this is coming from. Please understand that accusations of bad faith require evidence. Continued violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA without supplying evidence may lead to blocks. Make the case for your accusations, here and now, or quit making them. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If Nitinmlk has a solid argument against the existence of the article or the content then it must be easy to ping the involved editors and highlight the concern. But going around, reporting in admin noticeboards over revert is not exactly encouraged by WP:DR for resolving the content dispute. Nitinmlk falsely accused 4 editors of paid editing on SPI and is still rigid about these claims per his post above. Are you saying that he is correct with pushing his false allegations? At best this is a content dispute that needed a posting at WP:3O than ANEW or ANI. Ultimately much of the dispute will be resolved once the AfD has been closed. GenuineArt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far the AfD is concerned, if the page creator hadn't halted my edits, I would've already explained that the subject is non-notable. It has hardly four-five lines of independent, encyclopedic coverage. And now you are doing the same. The rest of your comment is mere repetition of the same points, which I've already answered. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good case for WP:3O like I said. Like EdJohnston said, you can still address the sources on the on-going AfD since that is most likely to work most if you want the participants to vote in your favor. GenuineArt (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wanted to clean up the messy sourcing of a mainspace article. But if the page creator or you won't let me do that, then I will produce my analysis of the sources at the AfD itself. BTW, for 3O, I guess there should be some discussion and subsequent differences, but they aren't responding at all. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page history includes edit where AC has disputed the removal of sources. It is enough for requesting input from WP:30. You can also notify any of the associated Wikiprojects for helping with the content. GenuineArt (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are talking about their sole edit at the talk page, regarding which I've explained the same thing to them multiple times already, and they have not responded, as I've clearly explained everything at the talk page. BTW, right from yesterday, I can see a pattern of delaying tactics here, as they are sure that the article will be kept if they can stop me editing the page for next few days. So I guess I will discuss the sources at the AfD itself. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You can still take advantage of WP:3O or ping any other editors involved. GenuineArt (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly amazed regarding your interest in the closure of the above AfD. Anyway, I don't believe in taking advantages. So I will give my analysis at the AfD itself within a day or two, as my today's time has already been wasted by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, if you have any other concern, then please tell me now, as I will log out after a short while. And I don't want to waste my next day here as well. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As expected by me, they don't have any concern. So I am logging out for today. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) None of this answers to my request for evidence behind the allegations of harassment. Also, the claims that NitinMlk should have pursued dispute resolution continue to ignore the fact that there was no disputation provided by AC, beyond the allegation of HOUNDING. Still waiting on that evidence or a specific reason for the reverts. Swarm ♠ 23:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone digs deeper they would find it obvious that NitinMlk's edits are problematic, and that is why I reverted them at first place. There was "disputation provided" on talk page, that the sources are fine for the purpose they are being currently used which is mostly for proving the notability and the prevalence of HOFA.[58] Which policy/guideline supports that you can carry out blanket removal of sources only because a user suspect them to be "user-generated/repeated ones" or one that is "written by a person with no credentials" even if published by a WP:RS? Removal of sources like this[59][60] was also invalid. We are not writing anything controversial or anything exceptional because even if NitinMlk believes the sources are questionable then he should state the reason because as of now the content is "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Another obvious example would be his removal of Reuters with a misleading edit summary[61] cannot be justified and he never made any mention of Reuters on the talk page[62] contrary to his claims that he discussed every source. There was not any dispute offered that if any of the sources are making misleading claims or the source is being misrepresented or we have to find better sources for the information in question since some subjects do require special category of sources. None of those criteria apply here. Has NitinMlk ever edited this subject before? I don't think if we can see any other reason that why NitinMlk edited the article and AfD except that I am the creator of the article. Not to mention his frequent false accusations of paid editing. He thinks that the article will be deleted but I am stopping him from making efforts, which is frankly absurd because his edits can be reinstated by anyone but no one seems to have shown interest regardless of these filings. AfD is the place where he can state all his reasons without waiting for anyone though I don't think he is able to change the growing consensus to keep the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of sources does not translate to the article being deleted. Sources are not used in articles to "prove notability". Removing sources does not change a subject's notability. So, your claim that he's removing sources to get the article deleted doesn't make sense. Even if that's what he was trying to do, he'd be wasting his time, because the presence of sources in an article does not correlate with notability at all. But, again, you'd have to have evidence of bad faith to argue that point, otherwise you're just casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Now, if you have no evidence of this, but you still feel the removal of allegedly-unreliable (per WP:UGC) or "redundant" sources is "problematic", then communicate your reasonings in your edit summaries and on the talk page. That's a content dispute. If you're going to dispute content, you have to communicate what exactly you're disputing and why. Failure to do so is disruptive editing. If you think his explanations aren't sufficient, or if certain aspects of his edits are wrong, then that's still a content dispute. AN/I is not the place to argue the merits of disputed edits, that place would be on the talk page, where there is still no content dispute being discussed because you have not yet provided any specific objections there. If you'd like to make specific objections to his edits, that's great, please take it directly to the talk page, and do not ever revert good faith edits without providing specific objections going forward, don't make personal attacks, assume good faith, focus on content issues, avoid personal commentary entirely, and pursue dispute resolution, and admins can stay out of it. Cool? Swarm ♠ 04:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • since Accesscrawl is pressing their case here I will say that their edits to The House of Fine Art are poor quality and promotional (and included stripping the orphan tag twice, without fixing the problem as far as I can see) and that NitinMlk's edits were very good.
    Accesscrawl's behavior has also been completely reproachable here, as well, not dealing at all with the poor quality of their own edits and personalizing the dispute.
    I will also say that I find Accesscrawl's responses to people at the now-archived COI editing section to be unconvincing.
    NitinMlk's behavior with regard to Accesscrawl has not been appropriate, as Swarm has already noted. It is important that we manage promotional and conflicted editing but the way you are going about it is wrong and harms everybody. We can talk about how to better handle this at your talk page. But please stop approaching it as you have been doing. Your behavior here has made this more difficult to manage, which is counter-productive for everyone.
    GenuineArt's behavior here has been very reproachable, as they have not dealt at all with the quality of the edits, are acting in WP:GANG fashion simply "supporting" Accesscrawl, who has done little to nothing that is supportable here.
    GenuineArt i suggest you step away from this, as you are not helping and are harming yourself.
    Accesscrawl. I will ask you here, to please disclose any connection you have to subjects about which you have edited, including HOFA and its owners and any PR agency they have. Your editing and behavior is exactly the same as that of freelance editor here. Please be aware that there is a place for conflicted and paid editing but you must disclose and you should follow the prior review process, which I can explain to you. But first things first -- namely, disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP action at National Museum of Brazil fire

    An IP has been continually removing this image from the article on the National Museum of Brazil fire, using edit summaries such as "irrelevant photo". I've just restored it again (and in the process seem to have violated WP:3RR - apologies, but apparently I was off by one in counting my reverts this morning.) Other people, too, have restored the image. The removal has been going on at a low level for the past few days, but has really ramped up today.

    I've advised the IP user to engage on the article's talkpage, but he/she refuses to do so. Next step appears to be a block to spark at least some kind of response. Given the fact that the IP is extremely dynamic I don't see it helping that much, but it would be at least a start.

    I'm not entirely against removal of the picture, but I'd like to hear more reasons beyond "irrelevant photo", which is incorrect.

    Any of y'all mind taking a look? I've let myself get too close to the issue and would like another pair of eyes or two on it before acting - also I'm planning on leaving the house in a few minutes and won't be able to get to any actions until this evening at the earliest. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left them a warning. I'm not watching the page, so if my further involvement is required, please ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The IP has moved to a new address. I'll continue to keep an eye on things and slap a block on if they do it again, with a further link to the talkpage. I'm loath to shut IPs out from the article, but that may end up being the only option. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they moved from 2804:7f2:2785:1261:544:312f:3f53:1b26 to 2804:7f2:2785:1261:ed48:63fe:3699:f602, which are both on the same 2804:7f2:2785:1261/64 network. My (limited) understanding of commercial IPv6 address allocation is that it's common to allocate a whole /64 to a single residential customer, so it's likely these are both the same residence. I've never done it, but I understand there's a way to block an IP range like this, yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a way to do it, I believe, but I haven't the foggiest how, either. Regardless, the article's quiet for the moment, so hopefully the issue's taken care of for now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. An IP from the same range has just deleted the image again. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The rangeblock would have been 2804:742:2785:1261::/64, but this one's in a slightly different range, so I've just semi-protected the article instead. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Well, I'll keep an eye on things for a while...hopefully this will do the trick. I'm sorry it came to a ban on IPs editing the article, but that may have been the best we could do for now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP block request

    12.53.95.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Somebody please block User:12.53.95.234. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their only contribution has been a rambling diatribe which they've resubmitted four times in quick succession. I was going to block them myself, but their comments at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Christian Catholic Ku Klux Klan Bible Prophecy Revelation 19 The 3rd Woe The 7th Trumpet The 5th Horseman make me involved, so I'd rather somebody else do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be great if the IP could get a non-templating warning explaining them what the problem is. If they continue resubmitting after the warning a block will be in order for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A personalized warning? You're not supposed to rant on Wikipedia (unless you're at ANI where it's required)? I deleted the pages created by the IP. If they persist in their obvious disruption, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor making personal attacks

    (non-admin closure) Multiple IPs blocked Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I reverted 72.86.140.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for NPOV on Risë Stevens. IP proceeded to accuse me of vandalism and being "either an out of control bot or a nitwit" and call me an idiot. I tried to explain that I reverted them for NPOV and asked them to stop here, then they continued with their attacks. Requesting eyes on this situation. Aspening (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP for 24 hours, making it clear that these personal attacks are not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, there's nothing moronic at all about insisting that it must be possible to explain why a famous star was famous and a star in perfectly NPOV language! Yikes. What a smug bunch, devoting yourself to the ceaseless struggle to prevent anybody with actual knowledge from improving the desiccated landscape of English-language wikipedia. Yes, the rumors are true, foreign language wikipedia articles are nothing like the shriveled English versions; they manage to incorporate vastly more and more meaningful information...presumably by keeping self-important editors such as yourselves in check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.145 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not talking about article content now. We are talking about your personal attacks on other editors, and now your block evasion. Your behavior is not acceptable here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Second IP blocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    None of you nitwits ever really care about content. It's always about respecting your authoritah!!! You're so very, very impressive with your power to delete content willy nilly and, uh, to cheese off people who know more than you about the stuff you don't really care about, and other important powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.126 (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated deletion on talk page by IP

    Not sure what to do about this, an editor using the IP range 172.76.*.* has repeatedly deleted comments on Talk:Bird's_Opening and I'm sure they are well aware of the policy on WP:TALK by now... which is also just plain common sense and good manners. I can only assume they are trolling. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say for the current intensity of these edits imposing a range block or page protection would be an overkill, so for the time being just reverting bad edits should work.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Theboo77

    This user has been brought to COIN several times:

    Evidence is pretty strong for a COI. He has already been blocked once for COI and paid editing. He has also been accused of outing. And now he's back, editing the same article. Maybe time for a longer block or some other sanction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the traces of possible outing. Kendall-K1, you should report all attempts of outing to the Oversight team so it can be suppressed. I went ahead and took care of all of that for you :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mayimbú

    After making exactly 10 edits and achieving auto-confirmed status, User:Mayimbú decided to add Zoë Quinn's original name to her article (which has been discussed on the talk page several times and prohibited as a form of harassment against Quinn). (Quinn's article is semi-protected.) As if that wasn't suspicious enough, the 10 previous edits that Mayimbú made were mostly trivial maintenance tasks that only experienced editors would know about, such as adding thumbtime parameters to video transclusions and replacing dead links with archived links. In other words, exactly the sort of simple, non-controversial edits an experienced editor would make if they were just trying to get a sock-puppet account auto-confirmed, but didn't want to exert much thought or effort. And as icing on the cake, one of their first 10 edits was to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Kaldari (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It would also be nice if an admin could delete the edit to Zoë Quinn. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done that bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Im the author of the edit in question. I had originally planned to make an edit request on the Talk Page but it was also locked. I was not familiar with the rule that stated it was prohibited posting her original name when i made the edit (I've only read that it cannot be put as "Birth Name" so i put it as "former name", as indicated not only in the Boston Globe source, but also in the Washington Post and Medium source (where it was stated that she used that name during the legal proceedings and changed it legally to Zoe in August 25). So don't get the wrong idea, I started in wikipedia as an user in Commons in February 2017, I did the editing without any bad intentions. If I had known that rule before, I wouldn't have made it. PS: Another thing i did in the edit was changing the {{cite news}} that cited a Tweet for the more convenient {{cite tweet}} and fixing the "Heart Machine" citation. --Mayimbú (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mayimbú. No worries, and thank you for adding to this discussion and for explaining your thoughts behind this matter. We always try to assume good faith by default here and I appreciate you for understanding. On articles that are the subject of a contentious topic or have been the center of contentious editing in the past, you'll see a notification of this on the article's talk page (specifically, what to look for is the notice about the Arbitration Committee and the authorization of uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions). When you see this notice, you'll just need to be extra careful and make sure that any edits you plan to make to these pages aren't or weren't the subject of discussion that came to a consensus in opposition to having the particular change applied. You've only made a handful of edits to the project, and we fully expect new and unestablished editors to make these kinds of mistakes. Worry not; it's a normal part of learning and it's okay to make honest mistakes here. Just take the feedback you receive to heart, learn from those mistakes, and apply them going forward :-). If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and do so tell me later that it was significantly helpful :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP altered 11 footballer caps/goals

    An IP range has edited 11 footballer pages, on 8 Sep 2018, to alter several scores of caps/goals per page. What footballer source, for Nepal players such as famous Rohit Chand (see: fix diff), gives the year totals of caps/goals, so I can check for deliberate hack numbers in the infoboxes? No hurry; pages just altered yesterday, and I've reverted some. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikid77 - The IP addresses you listed here come back to the same ISP (a mobile network) and geo-location, and are ASN sub-ranges of the parent range 114.120.0.0/13 (which is massive). I'm not sure of a source on the top of my head that you can easily use to check to verify the information changed - maybe ESPN, TheScore, NBC Sports, or other sources like this? Another editor will hopefully be able to answer that question. Unfortunately, if things get out of control regarding the addition of unreferenced content like this and from this range, the best we can do is look into and block each /16 range involved until we get a better idea of a possible sub-range we can safely block that would put a stop to it and without causing any collateral damage. If the edits have stopped since yesterday (it looks like they have), I'd just locate a source that either confirms or refutes what was changed and revert the ones that don't add up. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1990'sguy

    1990sguy is a creationist who wrote the Conservapedia article on this creationist film ([63]), and then brought it to Wikipedia. From the very beginning her has tried to WP:OWN the article. Numerous editors, including me, have worked on toning it down and adding a reality-based perspective but 1990'sguy has engaged in a months-long one against many campaign to skew it towards the favourable perspective provided by evangelical Christian sources. This has now resulted in two blocks for edit warring, in rapid succession.

    I know that Trump-loving creationists are not a popular class on Wikipedia, I think people have cut him a lot of slack for that reason, but the WP:OWN is a time sink and I think we need to ask him to step away from this article. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a few comments from me, not sure if a topic ban is needed yet. The original version was very one-sided, with the only criticism echoed in the article being from someone who apparently said "the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature." There was nothing about rejection from scientific commentators at all. On the other hand, it looks to me as if some have gone too far the other way and have been going over the top to stress the view that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is false - yes, the evidence overwhelmingly shows it to be false, but the article about the film should not be a platform for arguing against YEC (and even stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is "incorrect" - which I removed, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that reverted). So, even though I am fully on the side of the scientific evidence and I reject YEC, I can understand 1990'sguy's frustration too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I am getting a bit of this vibe from both sides of this dispute, what exactly was wrong with this [[64]] it removed a source, but generally the lead should not have sources in it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There actually is no lead in that article, it's all one section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, that edit wasn't performed by 1990'sguy but by 1991'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a nsmutte sock. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    It was originally, but was then redone twice by 1990'sguy after it was reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has been a concern of mine: everytime a driveby edit occurs a new drama ensues. About the sources, the issue is that the content is not in the article's body, so WP:PSCI-complying material, that still needs sources to avoid WP:SYNTH, is currently where the WP:LEAD would normally be (which is currently not an article summary). —PaleoNeonate – 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For more context: [65] which also points at another post with diffs (and likely shows my involvement). —PaleoNeonate – 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing! said Zebedee and PaleoNeonate, one of the problems with this article in particular, is that there is a dearth of mainstream sources about it as a documentary at all, as was pointed out in both the the 2nd AfD (Not just no full-length reviews, no reviews at all. The sources that do discuss it fail the independence test as laid out in NMOVIE: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic (which by definition excludes creationist groups).) as well as the 1st AfD. We don't even have pseudoscience-debunking blogs of reasonable quality debunking the propaganda; that is the extent to which the mainstream has simply ignored it. Literally the only mainstream newspaper that paid attention to the subject matter -- the reason why the film exists --, was this snarky passing mention in the Orlando Sentinel (the writer/producer/director's hometown) which said: "Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding 'NO!'". This is why the page should not exist at all here. Given that it does, we are doing what we can to comply with PSCI. It is a difficult situation.
    By the way, 1990'sguy has said here on WP that that they edit Conservapedia (originally here, as well as for example in this thread on their talk page).
    Here is the article on "Is Genesis History?" at Conservapedia which includes: Through these interviews, Tackett shows that an overwhelming amount of evidence for a young Earth exists, as well as against the pseudoscientific theory of evolution. (sic), which has been there since the page was created in March 2017. Per its history, 1990'sguy has made every edit there but three, and two of those are bots.
    1990'sguy created the page here in August 2017 (without that line) and per its editing stats, they are the biggest contributor here too, with almost twice the next person's (me). The WP:OWN is clear, and it is obvious that the goal is to use the WP article about this propaganda film here in Wikipedia as creationist propaganda, pushing the P&G here as hard as they can and even going beyond them in that effort. Yes, the immune system of the community rejects this sort of behavior and content.Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly see the problem if there's no RS coverage of this. And yes, I'd seen the Conservapedia article - it's pretty much as I expect from that project. I would not object to a topic ban, but I'd also want to see the other side not trying to shovel in too much "It's all wrong" stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Extreme animosity to YEC"? Well, I suppose, in the same way that we have extreme animosity towards ideologically motivated bullshit, but this is not just YEC, it is "creation science", a pseudoscience created by creationists specifically to get creationism taught in science class in violation of the US constitution. So animosity is very much justified. The movie promotes a deliberate fraud. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I hear that Boing. I don't think naming creationism as pseudoscience is too much.
    By the way, the Christian Post ref cited in the first paragraph now is useful, as it is a secondary source for criticism of the content of the film by Biologos (christians who accept evolution and write about the issue). 1990sguy himself included a primary source blog posting from Biologos criticizing the content of the film when the page was created. That was later cleared out as part of removing blog posts. The secondary-sourced content there now, does the same thing that he himself did, but now with better sourcing (not great, as Christian Post is still in the Christian bubble and we lack anything like the NYT or other high quality mainstream sourcing about the content of the film.) That makes his 2 recent reverts all the worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, calling it pseudoscience is fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: The previous version had "pseudoscience", "incorrect", "rejected by the scientific community", plus other statements of rejection - all within the first two sentences. That was over the top. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are entirely different points. "Pseudoscience" describes the manner in which the arguments are made, "incorrect" describes the truth-value of the statements, and "rejected by the scientific community" describes the reception of the ideas by the relevant epistemic community. They are not synonymous. Might there be easier ways or more textually beautiful ways to describe such things? Perhaps! But wholesale removal of content that is not otherwise present (e.g. identification of a claim that is incorrect as being incorrect) seems like it is opposed to best practices according to how we should assert facts. This is not a "shoveling" of "it's all wrong". It's a single word that indicates the truth-value of the statements. jps (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I encountered the user on the Ark Encounter article where the user edit-warred to remove RS content which said in Wiki voice that the Ark Encounter theme park promoted pseudoscientific theories.[66] I stopped editing the page soon thereafter, but I see now that the current version of the article includes the WP:WEASEL language that the theme park has been "criticized" for promoting pseudoscience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have had dealings with this editor in this article and at one other. 1990'sguy seems willing to listen to views that are different than their own, even diametrically opposed views, and is someone willing to "bury the hatchet" and work with an editor they have vociferously disagreed with in the recent past in order to find a solution to a shared problem. 1990'sguy is also reasonably intelligent and well-educated. I really don't mind editing alongside them, or even arguing with them.
    With that being said, I can't actually argue against the charges in the OP. 1990'sguy certainly does seem to want to WP:OWN this page, similar to the way they are the de-facto owner of the Conservapedia page. Their positions on various discussions seem to alternate between being based on due consideration and reason, and based on their admitted POV. Their behavior, while usually quite good, occasionally descends into stubborn edit warring, such as is currently the case.
    At the end of my deliberations, I think a "creationism" topic ban would not be a bad idea. 1990'sguy has the ability to be a useful contributor. They have the skills and -apparently- the desire to improve this project. But their own POV seems to trip them up, resulting in out-of-character edit warring and a certain inconsistency to their arguments as they move back and forth between conviction-driven argumentation and reason-driven argumentation. I think they would do quite well on articles that are not about creationism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A few comments. (1) I don't think WP:OWN is a big issue here. Edit warring and civil POV-pushing, sure, but I don't think anyone would look at that article and say "oh, a creationist clearly owns this page." (2) Yes, echoing Jytdog, the problem is that this page shouldn't exist. It's an article about a movie that has received no real reviews in mainstream sources, and coverage comes almost entirely from sources that cover it because it's a creationist documentary. (2a) This most recent edit war was to remove sources about creation science being pseudoscientific. In 1990'sguy's defense, they are kind of awkward there. That's because that sort of thing should come from coverage of the film -- and would exist if the film received any real coverage. It's only due to the convergence of WP:PSCI and a non-notable film article that we have the odd situation of being obliged to characterize something in a way sources about it do not, and so are compelled to cite sources per policy-based best practices even though they're unrelated to the underlying subject. (3) 1990'sguy does well when it comes to keeping his cool on talk pages, I think, and I appreciate that. He is also willing to engage with people he disagrees with at length. However, I do have serious concerns about his ability to abide by NPOV and RS. A topic ban on this article would be more or less pointless, as the edits he wars over almost never stick. The issue is the less well attended discussions/articles elsewhere. That he entered into a debate arguing in defense of WorldNetDaily (WND) as a good source is something that should be a red flag for editing any controversial topic. Likewise comparing creationism and the "theory of evolution"... and a variety of other sourcing/POV issues that run into trouble with our policies. Though I won't link to offwiki sources now, the account he links to on Conservapedia frequently adds "examples of bias in Wikipedia", such as that we treat InfoWars as a terrible source, or that our articles on murder, homicide, and genocide do not include content about abortion... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    About WND, I was defending it specifically as an acceptable source to use as a movie review, considering that it's has a relatively large readership. I would never support citing it on WP other than to cite the website's own opinion on an issue.
    About the "theory of evolution" quote, I know that "theory" in scientific jargon has a different meaning than the regular vernacular definition.
    About Conservapedia, I rarely edit things related to the topics you mentioned -- I mainly do politics, like here. But that's irrelevant, since I keep my work on both sites separate -- I take extra care that my POV on CP (everyone has a POV) doesn't creep into WP. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed There is so much work to do building and maintaining good content. Dealing with 1990sguy trying to capitalize on every drive-by creationist deletions or additions to promote the validity of creationism is a complete waste of time. We all have better things to do with our time (including 1990s guy). Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (nuance Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support 1RR on creationism topic area. I just took a look at the whole situation. From my observation, it seems that 1990'sguy is usually pretty good at keeping a NPOV and has certainly been a very constructive editor even in this topic area. However, his occasional edit warring in this area where he has bias is indeed a big problem. I don't think a topic ban would be necessary, but I do think 1RR on creationism for him would be appropriate in this situation. I don't want him to be forbidden from editing in this area completely, but we do need him to discuss the issues when he does get stubborn. funplussmart (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made many constructive, non-controversial edits on YEC topics: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23,24,25 -- this is a selection of all the non-controversial edits I've done -- I could have linked more. In short, I have made many non-controversial content edits on YEC articles, added reliable sources, and expanded them. I assure you that nobody would have made these edits or updated those articles had it not been for me.
    Mind you, my views on political topics are just as strong, if not even stronger, than my views on religious/scientific topics such as YEC -- but nobody's complained about my edits on the literal-thousands of political articles I've edited. I take NPOV very seriously on all articles, and it truly pains me to see and intro paragraph like this stay and even be defended despite its WP:COATRACK violation (and also to see a more mild version, which still calls YEC "pseudoscience" and explains its broad rejection, criticized as somehow being "YEC propaganda"). It also really pains me to see the Ark Encounter labeled and defended as "Ken Ham's creationist exhibit" when it's actually a theme park (with exhibits, not an exhibit of itself) owned by Answers in Genesis, which is a 501(c)(3) with a board of directors, etc. Imagine if I used similar wording to describe an atheist person or an animal rights activist. I have supported wordings on WP that most YECers would cringe at, and I have done my best to keep an NPOV in my YEC editing.
    For whatever reason, multiple editors are talking about me on Conservapedia. While I don't deny editing on the site, I don't bring it up here unless provoked -- and I take care to keep my work on both sites separate. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at those diffs:
    diff, adding In December 2016, for the holiday season, AiG lit the Ark with rainbow colors, the purpose being to "reclaim the symbol from the gay rights movement" and remind viewers of the Covenant (biblical)#Noahic covenant. (USA today ref) Of course you neglected to include the reaction of LGBQT people who were cited in the article, including ""The rainbow is a symbol of love, acceptance, unity and inclusion, said Chris Hartman, director of the Kentucky Fairness Campaign. "None of which Mr. Ham or his operation embrace or embody," Hartman said. Hartman admired the look of the lights, though. "It makes the ark look incredibly gay," Hartman said."
    diff just as the above, again just more PROMO, again neglecting more reactions: "“I didn’t realize Noah was so progressive,” while another called it an “awesome pride float.”" and also from here: "That is ABSOLUTE GAYEST BOAT and I 💯💯💯 LOVE IT. "
    More seriously, here you talked about Nye visiting, but nothing of what he said, which was “I wanted to see how successful this thing is, or could be, and I wanted to see how children are reacting to it,” Nye said Sunday. His takeaway? The kids are being “brainwashed.” “This could be just a charming piece of Americana, just something — I recently used an app called Roadtrippers that takes you to odd or unusual places…but this is much more serious than that,” Nye said. “This guy promotes so very strongly that climate change is not a serious problem, that humans are not causing it, that some deity will see to it that everything is ok.”" Nothing of that. Just PR for Ham.
    This one, yet more PR name-dropping, about Jimmy Carter dropping by. With a bareURL. Nothing from the source about Carter being reality-based and not a creationist. Just the PR.
    You actually posted this, where you use a spam link. And talk about what AiG is "currently" doing. Not good.
    oh look. Another instance of the Nye visit, added to the Ken Ham article this time. Again, nothing of Nye's reaction.
    here adding NOTNEWS content about filing a lawsuit.
    here wrong content about what happened with the lawsuit and here yet more. Which I fixed.
    So yeah, there were some bad, POV/PROMO edits there. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's edits like this (just now) that pain me -- always an urge to have to rub it in the readers' faces -- something I've never considered doing here. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Impugning the motives of others is very much not in the spirit of WP:NPA. You are claiming that I have an urge to do something which I manifestly do not have. You then go on to imply that you are better than me because you've "never considered" such a thing yourself. This is evidence, I would say, that you are better suited to a collaboration where people agree with your point of view so that you don't have to go around claiming that they have motives that they do not have. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That does look like a poor edit, adding nothing but redundancy (there is no such thing as "correct beliefs that contradict scientific facts", so no need to add "incorrect" when we already say "contradict scientific facts"). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there are such things. For example, someone may correctly believe that another person is out to get them, but that belief may be contradicted by the scientific fact that no one knows with certainty the thoughts of another. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is a difference between unverified and contradicted, contradicted means you have strong evidence that it is false, not just that you can't prove it true. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not the case. When you cannot verify something is true this is evidence that it is false. One can argue over whether such evidence is "strong" or not, but that's always case-by-case. In many scenarios, this is all that is possible to do. jps (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep talking about what "pains" you. It seems that what "pains" you is identifying YEC as factually incorrect and "creation science" as pseudoscience. That is exactly the problem: YEC is factually incorrect and "creation science" is pseudoscience. The fact that the reality about your beliefs causes you pain is a full and complete explanation of the observed facts, and a compelling reason for you to take a step back. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't think how someone edits on an intentionally partisan wiki (conservapedia) should make a difference in how we treat them on wikipedia, we should just judge them by their wikipedia edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR on creationism Honestly, this user's behavior on CP shouldn't matter here, and he does seem to be relatively good at keeping things NPOV here. Even in this topic area, he seems to be making non-disruptive edits, so probably just a 1RR in this area is needed and not a full topic ban. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarifying re: Conservapedia in light of comments above. To be clear, I have no objections to someone writing on both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, and even writing in significantly different ways on both sites. I understand that when you (or anyone) write about a subject on both sites, it will be different, and I don't hold it against 1990'sguy that his CP version of the IGH article is significantly more sympathetic in tone and content than ours. Furthermore, I appreciate that when he created the article here he did not simply copy the content/tone but worked to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy. The reason I brought up Conservapedia above wasn't to comment on his article work there, but specifically about edits on Conservapedia about Wikipedia, where he has commented about disputes over NPOV, RS, etc. here as they pertain to subjects like InfoWars, abortion, creationism, conservative politicians, etc., indicating a non-trivial misunderstanding of or disagreement with wikipolicy and/or how we apply it. When you say something like "Even edits that do not appear to criticize creationism and falsely portray evolution as scientific fact are removed," or that there is a "cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint [Alex Jones] as an illegitimate crackpot", that suggests to me an approach to Wikipedia based on a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipolicy. It's not about Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia, it's just about Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes the side of mainstream science, and there is overwhelming consensus that our RS policy means we treat Jones as, in so many words, an illegitimate crackpot. There is, of course, room for disagreement and dissent, and I wouldn't say all of the issues of bias you mention on CP (I haven't actually gone through them all, but have looked at those pages in the past) are baseless or skewed. We get things wrong sometimes. It happens. Like when IGH was kept at AfD (brb writing on RationalWiki about a right-wing cabal on Wikipedia [kidding]). In short: editing Conservapedia is not a problem. Being a creationist is not a problem. Editing creationist topics on Wikipedia without starting with the knowledge that NPOV/RS/FRINGE mean defaulting to mainstream scienc and understanding that InfoWars, etc. are not even close to reliable. I haven't actually proposed/supported a topic ban, fwiw, and would want to do additional digging (on WP, not CP, of course) before !voting. I'm more inclined to support the 1RR before jumping to a tban at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I did not write any of the stuff about InfoWars or Alex Jones. That was added by another (apparently single-purpose) user. They only added it to the main article, so I moved it to the sub-article -- maintenance work, nothing more. I don't even use the word "cabal", including when referring to Wikipedia. Please don't attribute things to me that I did not write. I am agnostic towards Wikipedia's treatment of Jones (mainly because I don't really care), and I've actually cited his article as an example for what Wikipedia should do for YEC-related topics (I think on the Ken Ham talk page). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @1990'sguy: Ah! Very sorry about that. Just going to err on the side of striking the whole thing. First time I think I've brought CP, et al. edits into an on-wiki discussion. I was uneasy about it from the start, and now regret it. Let that be a lesson to me, I guess. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • i shoulda brought diffs above. Here are some
    Extended content
    28 June 2018‎
      • diff IP 69.194.178.18 removed quotation marks with edit notes Quotation marks were used to mock creation science and creation scientists
      • restored by IanThompson
      • removed by 1990sguy
      • restored by Guy
      • removed by 1990sguy
      • restored by Guy
    22 July 2018
    6 September
    13 July 2017
      • diff content added by OtisDixon (blocked for socking Jan 2018) about Andrew A. Snelling "recently" getting a permit to take rocks from the Grand Canyon
      • reverted by me as UNDUE
      • restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere
      • reverted by me as UNDUE
      • restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere
      • blah blah we ended up with content simply saying "reationist geologist Andrew A. Snelling starting working with AiG in 2007 as its director of research"
    14 Nov 2017
      • diff by 1990'sguy changed "young Earth creationist science, instead arguing strongly to convert the public to three central points" to "young Earth creationist research, instead focusing on laypeople and teaching them three central points" with edit note better wording
      • reverted by me with edit note was worse wording. it is a ministry that seeks to convert, per source
      • reverted by 1990sguy with edit note he source does not say convert -- it says spreading the message -- and Christians would strongly object to your wording
      • reverted back by me, editing warring. giving notice. Again, PSCI DS are at play here
    ended up from others' editing at "Answers in Genesis presents evangelicalism as an all-out battle of their biblical worldview against a naturalistic scientific worldview"

    -- Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're accusing me of being IP 69.168.164.33 or another IP, I'm not. I have never socked. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. If I thought you were socking i would have brought an SPI. This is to support my !vote above. That is the second time in this discussion that you have taken stabs at the motivations of others (the first was here, noted here. Unwise. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't give any context to those diffs, and you included an edit war that I wasn't involved in at all (but it included the IP). Not unreasonable for me to assume that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The series without you is to show the editing like yours that we have to put up with on this topic. Which reminds me that i have to tweak my vote. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is not a feature film. It purports to portray reality as per the theory. So, all the heavy dose of criticism describing it as unreality is warranted, even three negatives in the lead sentence. (Even for feature films that portray science or history etc., we do include criticisms regarding their correctness. It should be more so here.) All this is content debate. But coming back to the topic, I wouldn't support any sanctions for 1990'sguy, based on just this one incident. They are normally level-headed and I believe they can correct themselves. But, if a repeat of this kind of behaviour occurs at any other creationism article, I would support a t-ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you mean the first "AN incident"? This report was made because it's a recurrent issue. —PaleoNeonate – 05:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions on 1990'sguy individually. I was one of the first editors other than 1990'sguy to come across Is Genesis History?, when I came across it on new page patrol last August. I made a few edits to counter what I thought was an unduly accepting POV towards the film's claims, and had some discussions about it with 1990'sguy. I found him to be receptive to other editor's opinions and committed to NPOV and consensus-building, despite his evident strong, non-mainstream views on the topic The problematic behaviour around this article didn't start with him, they began with the very contentious first AfD, which brought the article to the attention of several editors who very strongly opposed any coverage of the film that wasn't expressly negative. Since then there has been edit warring on both sides, with 1990'sguy more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault. The locus of this dispute is a particular article, not a particular editor, and something like a 1RR restriction or full protection on Is Genesis History? would be a more effective and fairer remedy than singling out 1990'sguy for a topic ban.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe (talk • contribs)
    • Oppose any sanctions on anybody. It appears that multiple parties have edit warred and sometimes the edit war was completely unnecessary. 1990'sguy appears to have engaged in productive discussion like some other editors however the recent activity and engagement in talk page concludes that some people should really take a break from this subject. I support 1RR or full protection on the article as more effective solution per above. Kraose (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions As I said 1990 is not alone in this on the article ion my opinion. I also agree that there has also been a degree of tag teaming over there. There are POV pushers on both sides, so no one sided bans.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, kids: collusion is not a crime!
    Tag teaming implies collusion. Who is colluding, and where? For context, quackery shills also accuse reality-based editors of "tag-teaming" over articles on things like homeopathy. I am not exactly overjoyed by the use of this term absent actual evidence of collusion. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "a degree of tag teaming" or to put it another way, there is agreement among certain eds (look at the talk page) that the article will reflect a certain POV. Thus there is a form of tag teaming, they have all agreed on what the article should say they they will make sure it does.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an accusation of tag teaming and POV is fair. I just see a number of editors trying to make the article reflect the consensus of academic opinion (which is what NPOV requires). I do think there has perhaps been a bit of excessive zeal from time to time in attempting that, but that's something that can be worked out on the talk page (as is actually happening). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call tag teaming is simply policy-based consensus forming. —PaleoNeonate – 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-Ban I think the closest you'll find to any tag-teaming is a preponderance of editors who follow WP:FRINGE/N and the pseudoscience wikiproject. Which is not the same thing as a tag-team. But an editor who creates an article copied from Conservapedia and then displays WP:OWN tendencies is not here to build an encyclopedia so I'd suggest they look for other, non-creationism related ways, to contribute. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions As noted, Is Genesis History? is a little known and little trafficked article. It should be no surprise that the article creator is a frequent contributor, including the addition of several pieces of information that paint the film in a critical light but were since wiped out by an RfC outcome that forbade the use of the sources upon which those additions were based. That he has been, at times, overzealous in reversions is attested to by a recent 3RR block, but I think Joe Roe's contention above that he is more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault at least deserves consideration, as does Boing's contention that some of the edits 1990'sguy has reverted appear to Boing! (an editor who, I believe, has a diametrically opposed worldview) to be piling on above and beyond what is necessary to comply with WP:PSCI. Whether or not you agree with Boing!, I think that shows that 1990'sguy's intentions were defensible without resorting to POV arguments, even if his execution has sometimes been less-than-ideal. I have found him to be more than willing to discuss his ideas and work toward compromise on talk pages. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more that he reverts every change. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or any (legitimate) reversion of a drive-by edit. —PaleoNeonate – 16:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IDHT and CIVIL issues with Shaddim

    There is a rough consensus here for a block, and I think little else will be achieved through discussion at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This problem started a few days ago with Shaddim adding unreliable sources to the E.T. video game, one of which was pastebin. ([67]) Chrissymad left a warning on their talk page after reverting the edit, which they responded to here. In this response, they does not seem to understand WP:V or WP:RS, describing it later by saying "it is a very fuzzy quality, as even nature , which is considered very eliable, is ....sometimes non-reliable. Nothing is reluable, we have to manage here unteliabilty". ([68]) Their lack of understanding is not against guidelines per se, but their refusal to discuss it and their incivility in is. They said: "What you are talking about is "relibality" which is a fuzzy quality which is rquired for controversial topics or articles about persons." Chrissymad reviewed their draft, Draft:Hedgewars, which is a non-notable promotional linkspam, and rejected it at AfC. They confronted her at her talk page, and was uncivil in doing so, referring to her actions as "bullshit authoritarian grandeur" and "utter garbage." Soon after, there was a dispute on N+ regarding the mention of the game's inclusion in 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. I personally think that a mention is warranted, (I did revert once, but changed my thoughts on it's inclusion) but some users did not, and rather than discussing on the talk page, Shaddim thought it necessary to but up against 3RR and revert three experienced editors. After they completed their final revert, they discussed it here, saying "stop hounding me and being involved needlessly in my topics." Evidently, they do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia; they are not their topics, they are everyone's topics. They also act as though discussing content in articles is a personal attack against them, and feels it necessary to strongly defend their actions rather than engage in civil discourse about those actions. (WP:WIN might shed light on this) A longer discussion ensued at this page over the reliability of pastebin, in which Shaddim responded to one of Chrissymad's comments saying "stop being a bureaucratic prick" after she made the argument that pastebin is unreliable and verifiable. In direct response to that, zchrykng left a warning on Shaddim's talk page cautioning personal attacks, where he threatened to bring up a "formal complaint" against Chrissymad. This brings me here, where I felt it necessary to mention this to the larger administrative community. I'll also note that the articles and edits they make seem to me to border on WP:TE. Vermont (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Their behavior is quite concerning. They do seem to be completely unwilling to understand that WP:RS requires published and journalistic sourcing be provided to support claims. If a source is challenged and it doesn't meet WP:RS, then the content must be removed. Verifiability is a key tenet of Wikipedia. In addition, WP:OR states that a synthesis of sources is explicitly not allowed, such as the 42 sources (links to a series of GNA download pages) used on the Hedgewars draft to try and support claims of popularity. Download counters are highly unreliable and easy to manipulate. Trying to claim a pastebin of source code by an anonymous uploader (on the E.T. game article) is a reliable source is also unbelievable. If they cannot be instructed on what a reliable source is and learn to collaborate well with others, then perhaps a block is needed. Waggie (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Verifiability is a key tenet of Wikipedia" -> I'm fully behind that. Even so strongly that I see great value in adding primary sources when other authors remove them afterswars, citing RS, which is from my perspective non-sensical. Our core goal is verfiablity, a secondary goal is the "strife for more reliable sources". The non-existence and the managing of less relible sources (by counter balancing, adding more sources, careful-defensive formulations) is our work. Shaddim (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block – This user's distinct distaste for the application of the reliable sources policy on "non-controversial" articles, as noted by the essay on their user page, is admirable, but is entirely inconsistent with what we're trying to do as a project. Their IDHT approach to the edit warring policy is not tenable. They need to seek alternative outlets. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - they're trying to contribute to Wikipedia, bless them, but it's really not working out at all well for them. They're now deliberately choosing to ignore core policies and to edit according to their own user page essay, which just doesn't work. Nick (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A concern Shaddim has been editing since 2011. I know I've seen the name come up on various VG articles, but never remember any problems like this. Are we possibly looking at a compromised account? --Masem (t) 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for noticing my productive work history, I noticed your one too and I think we never came in conflict. But no, the recent incidents were me, but my perspective on them is different then here presented.Shaddim (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, Probably not, as this from two years ago is consistent with what's happening now. Although, there does seem to be a change in civility from then to now, but the spelling errors remain the same. Vermont (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Just want to throw that out there. What we're seeing is not acceptable, but more curious as to the why. --Masem (t) 18:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how you've missed the behavior Shaddim exhibits when we start talking about reliability. I can think of a fingerful of occasions where he was helpful; otherwise, he has tended not to get the point of our sourcing policies and guidelines. Deliberately, from what I can tell. I don't know about a block, but he has been (calmly) disruptive in multiple discussions due to the I didn't hear that mentality. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - I’ve had lengthy discussions on source reliability at various AFD and merger discussions. He’s definitely had a WP:IDHT/I don’t care type of attitude about source reliability in the past, so if it still hasn’t improved, a block is probably warranted at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very focussed on sourcing, verfiability is the one core quality which brought me to contribute and valuing WP. I'm very concerned about "strifing for more reliable sources". But, I reject the accusation of OR, I source my stuff very fine grained and for instance counting is not OR. Our disagreement is about what kind if source can act as "reliable enough" source for which purpose: technicla facts, notability etc. this is normal policy disagreement inside the five pillars.Shaddim (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This situation has been a long time coming. As stated above by others and myself, Shaddim does not want to edit in accordance with our content PAG, especially our expectations regarding no original research and verifiability and especially our perference in most cases for secondary sources, in general. Given that, a more targeted kind of editing restriction may help to focus his efforts and avoid a block now and/or an indefinite block at some point in the future. My suggestion: "When editing about video game topics, Shaddim may use only those sources indicated as reliable on WP:VG/S. When adding content, he must provide a detailed, inline citation to a source listed there." Basically, provide him the list of works from which he may draw facts about any particular topic in the video game sphere (where he edits most, from what I have observed). --Izno (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’d support this as well. Either/both I support, whatever garners consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • this is no way to treat an independent person and fellow author. You try to give the impression that it is very clear what are reliable sources, yet, the portals & authors wastes enormous valuable time in bickering about if a source is reliable enough or was at some point reliable or lost reliablity lately: this topic is highly fluid, controversial and not at all cut in stone. My interpretation is, wikipedia is about managing unreliability, on base of more or less reliable information sources. Trying to externalize this work by insisting there are absolute reliable source which we can blindly trust misses the point of our work. Shaddim (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Izno's idea is a fairly common approach to handling editors who don't understand source reliability. If you can't make the distinction yourself, rely on the list of sources that are already non-controversially and widely classified as reliable or unreliable. It wouldn't necessarily be for forever, just until you show that you understand Wikipedia's views on source reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have some sympathy for an opinion which is "RS are not cut and dry". However, your behavior and statements suggests that you do not care about our other core content policies such as no original research. Yes, it is original research to use primary sources. We allow such use in a limited fashion for basic details. But your editing behavior more often than not is: "I will use primary sources regardless of any other concerns voiced by anyone else that it is inappropriate." Which is not okay and which is why I suggested "here is a list of reliable sources which will set you on the path to writing about what needs to be written". If you can not or will not change your attitude on this point, then this section at ANI makes it look like you will be blocked for some indeterminate period. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do care about the OR policy, I see myself staying away from OR but sourcing my content extensively. Also, I don't apply primary sources indiscriminately: I use them to prove exstience or technical facts (only) and make these verfiable for readers. Like linking to github source repositories. I understand the great requirement for reliable secondary/tertiary sources for strong general statements like "X started war Y" : normally I don't use such language or introduce such text parts or work in such controversial topics. About "primary source usage is in general OR": if we cite John Carmarck opinion as exceptional specialist on something by linking to some selfpublished text from him, I can't see the OR here. also, counting is not or Shaddim (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: hi, as this is about me I think it is appropriate to answer. First, I'm well aware of the reliability criteria and even more important I'm aware of their motivation, history and intend. An the intend and sensible implementation of reliability and when it it is sensible and required, seems to be lost on the community. Some people seems to be surprised that I argue primary sources can be reliable. This is obviously true. An article of an author is an reliable information about its opinion or the existence of the article. While on the other hand, a Nature article, can be considered among the the most reliable sources for scientific facts (but not absolute reliable). Which illustrates that reliability (and its requirements) are differentin dependence of context and for the most important case ("is this a nature science fact/true") a source can be only more reliable but never absolute reliable (unlike trivial facts like, "did he said that?", "exist this text"). That this details seems nowadays lost is a pity and problem for wikipedia, but well. I credit it to the win of deletionist faction, the practical non-existing inclusionst and new author inflow anymore. From this perspective I understand that it is comfortable to block an uncomfortable nuanced interpretation of sourcing and RS which is not shared and implemented the majority of authors here, and therefore take the easy route and block me.
    Second, I would like to formally complain about chrissymad about hounding and unprofessional behaviour, I propose her for a block. After the first disagreement I went in contact with her on her talk page to discuss the topic. After some sentences and blunt accusations ("you don't know RS") she ended unlaterally the discussion whioh I consider rude and unacceptable, as this prevents and blocks any resolution possibility. Second, as kind of revenge she browsed my history and rejected in an act of revenge the well worked out draft in <2min which is ridicoulous and can only mean that this was at best skimming over the text. Her core argument was: it was deleted before multiple so it is unlikely now primetime. Which is infinite shallow and damaging for the project, such a behaviour. We struggle with keeping authors and attracting new ones, how dismotivating would be such a "review" for a new author who invested days or weeks in a draft? I expect an in-detail response per source and conclusion about the notability and quality and structure of an article not such arrogant horsesh*t. This persons ego seems way above anything else, and has the potential for damaging the project I propose here for a block. (About the articles notability, I want to start a discussion with the VG portable as million of downloads indicate indeed notability & this case seems currently not properly addressed in the guidlines.)Shaddim (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary / mission statement: My core concern and core guideline for my WP work was and are the five pillars (as some indicated I should work somewhere else as I'm outside these: these notation I reject). Verifiability of all claims is for me the core quality beside balanced presentation and objective perspective, which brought me to joining. "Strifing for reliable sources" is a quality I sign on and apply in my edits, acknowledging the need for different quality of sources for varying strengthes of statements. In case of question I weaken the statements and search more and better sources. My articles and edits are most of the time well and fine grained sourced; as example of an article which fullfils the requirments of the 5 pillars very well I offer the in weeks researched and sourced Draft:Hedgewars draft. I consider this a well sourced, quite balanced and neutral article of good quality; everything is backed by sources. There are secondary reliable sources of notable magazines like FAZ and C't, there is media reception over years and usage in the millions by users, therefore the assumption of notability is not misplaced. This idea I think deservres at least a proper review. I will apologize for confrontional, uncivil language in reaction to reverts, rejection and content destruction in the last time. But I will not apologize for being enraged about too light handed dismissive content removal, overly fast and unfounded and unresearched and unexplained rejection of good sourced content for wikipedia by Chrissmad. I believe content creator deserve especially respect and due time for investing their time in this project: creation is hard, time consuming & work intensive; rejection and deletion is easy and fast and should applied more carefully. 12:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    "...very well I offer the in weeks researched and sourced Draft:Hedgewars draft." You shouldn't be doing any researching, and your draft is no where near mainspace-ready. The vast majority of the sources are primary, few of them are reliable, there's quite a bit of linkspam of unreliable links (refs 46-87 are all unverifiable, easily manipulatable download statistics) and it quite simply doesn't show that it is notable. Vermont (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for being the first one taking a closer look. Webarchive and archive.is and the download webpages are independent and not easy manipulateable, someone would have to hack them. I think this is good enough for showing 100.000 to millions of downloads + we have the game inclusion on coverdisks with circulations in 100.000s too. Such numbers are in my book a indication of notability (but I would like to bring this to VG portal for a discussion too). An, as you noticed there ARE independent reliable sources over years and for many countries. Why they are not good enough? Shaddim (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shaddim - Can you please provide diff links of the edits in question that support your accusations against Chrissymad for incivility, hounding, and her "ending the discussion unilaterally"? Accusations like these are serious, and you must provide evidence via diff links to support such accusations when you make them. Failing to do so is both uncivil and disruptive - please provide them here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please remain civil and do not add comments such as, "I expect an in-detail response per source and conclusion about the notability and quality and structure of an article not such arrogant horsesh*t". You were just recently warned for making uncivil comments two days ago when you added this comment to Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) calling Chrissymad "a bureaucratic prick". Any further comments like this will result in being blocked for making personal attacks toward other editors. I'll await your response with the evidence I'm asking for... thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please leave my discussion page now" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrissymad&diff=858354269&oldid=858354072 Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    hounding: "14:54, 6 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+626)‎ . . Draft:Hedgewars ‎ (Rejecting submission: n - Topic is not notable (AFCH 0.9)) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,223)‎ . . User talk:Shaddim ‎ (General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). (TW))" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Chrissymad&offset=20180906153244&target=Chrissymad 6min inbetween to shut the draft down, which was unrelated to previous discussion. She then even followed me on anther again unrelated discussion about N+ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:N%2B&diff=prev&oldid=858364528 Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shaddim - Okay, lets get the series of events straight here... Chrissymad declined your submission of Draft:Hedgewars, and you left uncivil messages on her user talk page in retaliation to her decline and with the first message you left here stating, "wont accept your singular.uninfomed (sic) opinion". Your responses on her user talk page include this one where you stated, "Your review and nuanced understanding of rs is the only thing here which is utter garbage" - hence, I see her request asking you to stop editing her user talk page as both unsurprising and a reasonable way of dealing with your personal attacks and unacceptable conduct there. Chrissymad is perfectly allowed to ask you not to edit her user talk page anymore, and unless there is a legitimate circumstance that requires you to do so (i.e. discussion notifications, etc.), users are expected to comply and honor such requests.
    I also don't see Chrissymad's decline of your draft page as unreasonable either. After your repeated uncivil messages and personal attacks toward Chrissymad and in retaliation to the decline she made on that draft, what do you expect her do to? She tried explaining her reason for declining your edit, you were uncivil. So she told you to leave her alone. What part of Chrissymad's conduct in comparison to yours is unprofessional and problematic, and warrants a block? If anything, you are the one who was acting uncivil and unprofessional. If had to choose between blocking you or Chrissymad (in a hypothetical "what if" game), who do you think has acted more uncivilly and unprofessionally - you or her? Who do you think should or would be blocked? Who do you think most editors would choose if they had to pick?
    To conclude, I see no conduct by Chrissymad that warrants a further look or even a consideration of action against her. Your accusations have no merrit and are in response to your uncivil conduct toward her, not the other way around. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block; while I previously had no opinion on this, seeing the subject's defense of their actions convinced me quite quickly that there is little to be gained by extending rope in this instance. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, this might be true and I'm aware that the form in which I present my case might quite suboptimal for the result. But on the other hand
    • Support block: After their response to my warning I was considering filing a report myself but was beat to the punch. Very much WP:IDHT regarding RS, and unrepentant about the personal attacks. Also can’t seem to distinguish between helpful feedback and personal attacks. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 11:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block or some other restriction I was on the fence when I first read this last night. This incident is exactly like every interaction I've ever had with Shaddim, almost always in the space of open software games of which he holds to an advocacy position. The response here show a doubling down on the idea that primary sources are fine for everything, and a refusal to understand how they factor into WP:OR and WP:GNG. For another example, see RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 from August 2017. The entire talk page is Shaddim pushing these positions against a general consensus. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you, I was trying to remember some similar instances to the issue at hand here, as there's been a number of them over the years. This was one of them. The talk page shows evidence of all sorts of poor ideas related to unreliable sources and OR, and only stopped because of a complete consensus against his stances. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The response here show a doubling down on the idea that primary sources are fine for everything" -> I never, ever said that or applied that. I argued repeatedly for a nuanced need and application of sources, technical, trivial facts can and should be backed by primary sources ("it exist"). More trivial stuff does not need even sources overall (see "the sky is blue"). Stronger statements like "best strategy game ever" need obviously stronger sources, so my position is EXCATLY as it is described in our polcies and the five pillars. Shaddim (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing the point that several of us have made: if it's trivial and doesn't need to be sourced, it doesn't need to be in an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No one made this point until now and this is so broadly argued that it hardly a discussion point. If you meant specifically the hedgwars draft: The fine grained argumentation with primary sources for hundredthousands to millions downloads is useful as it shows real-world impact and by that notability & satisfy our primary goal of verfiabilty. Shaddim (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how better to explain what I already have, so I'm not going to engage on this matter any longer unless asked by a third party. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block or topic ban from editing any gaming related articles in mainspace directly, broadly construed. I apologize for the delay in my response and I have several things I'd like to address when I'm not mobile (it's a PITA to respond on a phone.) But I never inferred or attacked Shaddim, I said the sources he was trying to use were utter garbage and I stand by that statement. Pastebin is never an acceptable source, I would put it on the same level as personal knowledge of any given subject. Aside from that, there was no hounding or contrib stalking. Shaddim triggered COIBot in the feed and that's why I looked to begin with and considering the great backlog at AFC when I saw there was an unreviewed draft, I did a review just like I would do for anything else: evaluating sources. I am not going to give a breakdown of every source because that's a massive time sink when it's obvious that consensus would agree with my decline but I'll note this: there are 108 sources. 108. 41 of those sources are for one single sentence. Nearly every single source is a "stat" page, build link or a link to their website in any number of languages, which goes to another point that I think a topic ban would cover and that's Shaddim's inclusion of trivial content. No one is arguing that a primary source can't be used but a primary source does not establish notability based on personal research and asserting that x number of downloads = notable. I took a quick look at Shaddim's edits once he refuted the pastebin issue and found a long history of this behavior. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or just an inability to understand what types of sources and content are required, but it's become a massive time sink, in my opinion, especially since this conversation continues yearly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)I've amended my proposal of a TB to a full out block as I can see no situation at this point where this editor's presence will be conducive to a collaborative encyclopedic environment, as evidenced by their monumental failure to understand the basic core of Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • and I stand by the statement that your fast-shot response behaviour, searching my history and shooting down with little to zero research a draft and being involved in discussion you have no stake in is harmful for the project and the ignitor of this incidence which blocks me and wastes the time other constrcutive editors. But, I will apologize for my language, this was unneeded. Shaddim (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shaddim, to be frank, I could care less about your incivility toward me. What I find problematic is the massive time sink you've created by arguing against literally every editor here and every policy and guideline regarding sourcing to suit your own thoughts. I have been nothing but civil to you and I have thoroughly explained (as have dozens of others at this point) every revert I have made, every decline with regard to your edits and you're still repeating yourself. Arguing the reliability of pastebin for example is like arguing that 2+2 is 53. It's not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I also care most about the harmful effect your unconsidrate activity will have on wikipedia. About pastebin as primary source, I already answered here 2 times I think. Shaddim (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: if you feel you don't have the time to do the work required for a proper review of an draft: don't come to premature, ill advised decisions then, take your time or drop out. Shaddim (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved Shaddim's comment to the end to preserve threading since it separated replies from the original message. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing premature about my review and am reversing my decision to not engage as it's clear you're not here to work collaboratively or in any encyclopedic manner. I don't know why you've decided that I'm the big bad guy here when literally multiple other editors have flat out told you that you are wrong and my review was perfectly in line with consensus. See: Zchrykng, waggie, Vermont, TheDragonFire and this is just in regard to the draft and your edits regarding pastebin. There's also the many times your editing has been called into question prior to this: a friendly warning and discussion from NinjaRobotPirate, This thread about sources, a warning about disruptive editing, sources and consensus by SnowFire,this long discussion about your behavior and lack of understanding basic principles (sourcing) of Wikipedia., this thread where you've decided that consensus doesn't matter about reliability, this thread about your editing ideologies, and this prophetic thread in which it was explained to you ad nauseum that you can't just make up consensus. And lest we forget, your apparent habitual breaking of WP:CIV and WP:NPA: like here at James' talk page where you accused him of tool abuse and called him an asshead, or here on the same page where you accused him of misuse and name called. Should I continue? The fact that we've literally spent days debating something as ridiculous as whether or not Pastebin is reliable or a draft with 108 references to ridiculous sources is nothing more than a time sink and disruptive editing. tl;dr Shaddim's editing ideology and inability to grasp WP:RS, WP:V and inability to collaborate is incompatible with an encyclopedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    your review was all about premature: 6min fastshot, no proper explanation. That you NOW do your homework does not change that. I would have accepted a rejection with a proper review & explanation. Shaddim (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    also, stop trying to misrepresnt my position: as I layed out above clearly and convincingly, I'm aware about the importance of sourcing in WP. I'm a major contributor to sources in articles and I have deeply contemplated about the need and strenghtes of varying quality of sources. Shaddim (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shaddim, After checking through the draft and it’s sources, I came to the same conclusion as Chrissymad. It’s non-notable linkspam hugging the border of WP:OR. Vermont (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All fine and dandy, but van you give me details (there ARE several foreign language RS sources)? Bordering OR means it is not OR: counting is not OR. Million of downloads and being top ten at MacStore games means something. 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    RS material:
    • Joel Lee (August 14, 2017). "20 Best Open Source Video Games". MakeUseOf. "8. Hedgewars - Hedgewars is an open source clone of Worms — but it’s also so much more than that. It has taken the idea of a turn-based strategic artillery game and expanded it in all kinds of directions, especially when it comes to the weapons available in the game. In addition to single-player missions and multiplayer mayhem, Hedgewars provides all kinds of customization: to your hedgehog, to game modes, and to game assets (through community-made content packs)." (https://www.makeuseof.com/about/ , article by the Editor in Chief)
    • "Hedgewars PC - Open-source'owy klon Worms, czerpiący pełnymi garściami z tej utytułowanej, komercyjnej serii. Program powstał dzięki systemowi dotacji od zainteresowanych graczy". Gry Online (in Polish). March 24, 2006. (Polsih news webpage)
    • Richard Smedley (May 2008). "HotPicks". Linux Format (105): 73. (paper magazine)
    • Sebastian Dziallas (2009). "Strategiespiele - Hedgewars". C't (in German) (24): 138. (major German computer magazine)
    • Adam Saleh (8 November 2010). "Hedgewars: Linuxový remake hry Worms Armageddon - Spomínate na rok 1999, keď známi vývojári z Team 17 priniesli šialenstvo Armageddonu v podaní malých ružových červov? Ak vám tieto časy chýbajú, nemusíte ďalej váhať a stiahnite si Hedgewars" (in Czech). linuxexpres.cz. (Czech linux web magazine, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fcs.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLinuxEXPRES&edit-text=&act=url)
    • Hedgewars 0.9.13 - Gelungener Klon des Spiele-Klassikers Worms Hedgewars" (in German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2010-05-03. Archived from the original on 2010-11-03. "Das kostenlose Hedgewars ist eines jener Computerspiele, das trotz eines an sich simplen Konzepts eine große Suchtgefahr mitbringt. Die Grafiken und Landschaften sind liebevoll und abwechslungsreich gestaltet." (major German newspaper)
    • Filippo Moriggia (2008-11-17). "Download del giorno: Hedgewars". PC Professionale (in Italian). (Italian PC Professionale Magazine) Shaddim (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block: "...I see great value in adding primary sources when other authors remove them afterswars, citing RS, which is from my perspective non-sensical. Our core goal is verfiablity, a secondary goal is the "strife for more reliable sources". The non-existence and the managing of less relible sources (by counter balancing, adding more sources, careful-defensive formulations) is our work." The repeated incivility, plus a clear lack of understanding of how primary sources fail WP:V and that verifiability is established by the WP:RS has convinced me Shaddim simply doesn't get it, and unfortunately may never. This has been explained repeatedly, in many different ways. They seem to not understand that download statistics are easily inflatable, even by simply starting downloads repeatedly (nevermind using bots or other methods to manipulate these numbers), and that from a Wikipedia perspective as a tertiary source primary sources simply are not reliable or verifiable when it comes to anything potentially promotional. Waggie (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Carmarcks (confirmed) twitter account (primary source) is an reliable source on his opinion. Verfiablity achieved. Case closed. Shaddim (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • about bots and manipulating downlaod numbers, this is the first time this is mentioned. One could argue like that for these download counters, but I would argue no one had something to win by manipulating it (years ago). Indeed we have manage these uncertainties somehow at WP: I think the most important line of defense is defensive, careful language & usage ("as download counters indicate...") + verfiability by the reader to make up their own mind on this. But this also true for the so called "reliable" secondary sources, who were wrong reportedly wrong before and can were manipulated. Shaddim (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're continue to fail to see the core issue here. At best, you can use a primary source to say "X number of downloads have been made from site y". That is all. Straight up what the primary source states. You cannot use it say "It is popular" or "It is widely downloaded" or any other such statement. You cannot "prove" popularity or notability from a download counter. Anything more than an exact statement of what the primary source indicates is WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)First time they've been mentioned in this thread? I mentioned them at the top of this thread, as has Vermont mid-way through. A primary source can be used to verify statements made by the subject, meaning that we can quote someone as saying something in particular, but that is not useful for establishing notability, nor is it useful for verifying any fact except something relatively trivial like their birth date, location of residence, or their parents names. And to add what Ferret says, you cannot use download counters from software site archive pages to calculate totals using WP:OR. Waggie (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NOTHERE

    Handled--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kleuske - Checking... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleuske - Both accounts have been blocked for persistent self-promotion or solely making edits in order to self-promote. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam etc. on Tote betting article

    There has been lots of spam, unreferenced and off-topic content being added, by one or more people.

    Most recently by the IP 83.244.144.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and also by Embers18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    It doesn't look like they're going to stop. Hevernon (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I configured pending changes for 6 months; if they continue now I will block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP, as their edits didn't stop after the protection was applied. Ymblanter, if you feel that my block duration was too short, feel free to modify it without my approval - just ping me and let me know what you changed it to (if you do so). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=858937774"