Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Homophobia by 100.34.209.153[edit]

Blocked by Dennis Brown for one month. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 100.34.209.153 has left quite a vile, homophobic comment at Talk:Nathan Wyburn (see [1]). I see the editor has had multiple warnings about inappropriate behaviour on Talk pages, and would appreciate if someone could block the account, or at the very least remove their recent comment from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted the commend and revision deleted it, as it seemed to be denigrating the article subject on top of being homophobic, i.e a WP:BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The IP is now repeatedly blanking the IP Talk Page, which contains previous warnings and the link to this discussion. So maybe a further warning and/or a block may be required? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with them blanking the talk page. It signifies that they have read the warnings. There are very few things that can not be removed from a talk page and none of the items that they are blanking are required to remain. -- GB fan 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the only thing IP editors cannot remove from their talkpages are notices that the IP may be shared. Otherwise the usual talkpage rules apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the hate mongering and such, I've added a one month block on their static IP as it seems they have been using it for at least a month. There is plenty of room for differing opinions and debate, but not hateful bashing of others. That isn't part of building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 11:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Seen. Although since the attack was three hours ago, and they have made no edits since for three hours...? Muffled Pocketed 11:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Being three hours or twelve hours is meaningless for this type of violation. They had plenty of prior warning. Had they been a registered user, I probably would have indef blocked them until a dialog could be had. Because they are an IP, this limits the amount of time I can block, but it doesn't prevent me from doing my best to treat IP editors and registered editors as equitably as possible when it comes to setting a block for hate mongering. They are still free to appeal the block, just as any registered user may. Dennis Brown - 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poor behavior, POINT, and POV issues with OliverBel[edit]

OliverBel indefinitely blocked by JzG. Neutralitytalk 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OliverBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I encountered an edit by OliverBel last night which continued an edit war/disruption campaign on David Irving. The article is contentious because Irving is a holocaust denier (ref) and a number of IP users want this description removed and replaced with "historian". Upon reviewing OliverBel's talk page and edits, I'm convinced they are no longer here to build an encyclopedia and cannot edit on politically contentious articles in a constructive manner. Since the end of March 2016, they've made 12 edits, nearly all of which have been disruptive.

On or related to David Irving
  • 12:04, 29 March 2016 - Restored IP comment on talk page insisting Irving is a "historian". Comment included the text " I am aware of the large Jewish presence on Wikipedia so to avoid conflict of interest I would kindly invite Jews to withhold from commenting."
  • 12:08, 29 March 2016 - Followed up with comment that "I suggest Nick-D has his administrative privileges revoked. Reverting an addition to a talk page and banning a user for raising a point on a talk page is fascism and has no place on Wikipedia. Highly unprofessional and childish behaviour."
  • 12:35, 29 March 2016 - On David Irving, replaces "author" with "historian", removes holocaust denier, and removed html comment about not editing per consensus on talk page. Uses edit summary "I assume no disagreement since attempt to obtain consensus was closed"
  • User was blocked by JzG at 13:18, 29 March 2016, for 31 hours for "disruptive editing".
  • 23:21, 2 April 2016 - On The Destruction of Dresden, authored by Irving, removed referenced text claiming the book was not considered authoritative. Edit summary was "Vindictive bigotry"
  • 23:23, 2 April 2016 - On David Irving, removed "author" and added "historian" with edit summary "His books have been reviewed in national newspapers. He IS a historian, whether you personally like what he says or not. Keep bigotry and political correctness outside of Wikipedia."
  • User was blocked by Nick-D at 23:50, 2 April 2016, for 1 week for "disruptive editing"
  • 03:58, 6 September 2016 - On David Irving, again removed "holocaust denier" and replaced it with "historian". Edit summary was "He is an historian, dummies. Stop letting politics get in the way of fact. This is Wikipedia, you are supposed to be neutral." This was the exact same edit by an IP user ([2]) made at 00:38, 6 September 2016 with the edit summary "removing political correctness. He is a historian, even if you don't like him." which resulted in Acroterion semi-protecting the page.
  • 05:21, 6 September 2016 - Doug Weller warned them with a level-2 template. Added comment "You knew you'd be reverted, you've tried this before."
Other edits

I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Related general sanctions to the edits are WP:ARBAP2 and MRM general sanctions. Frankly I'm leaning toward indefinitely block given trend in recent behavior. The most recent edit ([3]) warrants another block since it's an escalation of the previous two blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree, and have blocked indef. The user edits infrequently, but every edit and summary reeks of wrongteous anger. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kristin Smart[edit]

Boldy closing what appears to be a run of the mill content dispute. While undoubtedly posted here in good faith, this is not the correct forum. Take it to the article talk page.(non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kristin Smart is in the news again. A large swath of sourced content was recently deleted by an editor affiliated with the university Smart attended and where her body is allegedly buried.[4]. Could someone review these unusual deletions? Thank you. Fancy nancy schmanzy (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent Disruptive Editing[edit]

BLOCKED
its a bird! its a plane! its Bishzilla! Blocking the ip at the speed of light! (non-admin closure)--Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After having multiple encounters with the user 86.4.217.101, I have finally decided to make his disruptive behaviour more widely known. Following repeated reversions of valid edits on 2016 French Open – Women's Singles and vandalism on my own user page, the user was warned and subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Following the block, the user continually blanked his talk page and any attempts of communication were met with blanking and vulgar content on the talk page. The user has came to my attention again following repeated reversions of edits on 2016 Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles. The user will not accept that the article is written in the way set out in the article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Despite trying to make this point to the editor and notifying them of the standard article layout my attempts have gone ignored. Upon looking at their talk page, I see that they have been warned about non-constructive edits on the article Lauren Davis. Again the user replaced the content with "Suck My Dick :)". The user has also used threats such as "Bitch try me" and repeatedly uses expletives in edit summaries.

Examples

This user is causing a real headache for all the editors over at tennis articles. We have tried as much as possible to avoid edit warring, but it is pretty difficult when the other party refuses to engage in discussions on the article's talk page and any attempt to post on their own talk page just gets blanked. I would ask that some one would look at this behaviour, as it is clear that further action is needed following an unsuccessful previous ban. --F1lover22 talk 23:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 60 hours. It's a dynamic IP, so I hesitate to place a longer block. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaming the system?[edit]

There is strong consensus that an AN thread is not a helpful thing to raise at this stage. There isn't really any consensus to endorse or overturn anything else, either behavioural or editorial. Deryck C. 06:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 after surviving an AfD and a deletion review. now has another AfD (The failed AfD closed on 24 August 2016 (no consensus), the deletion review was closed on 2 September 2016 (endorse close) and the new AfD was filled on 2 September 2016). Also the entire article has been deleted and replaced with a paragraph about a 1964 essay that has nothing to do with the specific topic of the 2016 US presidential election. I tried to restore it but was reverted. Could we please have some uninvolved admin eyes on the article, and especially on what I believe to be gaming of the system?

(Note the "United states" vs. "United States" in the above URLs) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note the closer (User:Sandstein's) comment: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." (my emphasis - VM).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That makes the second RfD just an easily-fixed formatting problem (it should say 2nd nomination with a link to the first). However, changing this well-sourced article and reducing it to this blanked article when there was no consensus to delete was, in my opinion, gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues". Well sourced my butt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
What? That's about as good as sourcing gets for a comspiracy theory, unless you want a source from Breitbart or Alex Jones or something. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Some of the removed material was sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept. I stand by my assertion that well-sourced material was deleted and politely decline Volunteer Marek's offer of his butt -- thanks but I already have one. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the visual. EEng 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There are already two other threads about this here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election.2C 2016 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles for deletion. Can they please be consolidated into one to try and avoid a huge mess. Also please note that it is a holiday weekend in the US so some editors (involved or not) may not be around to respond quickly if pinged. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It is appropriate to renominate no-consensus afds, even quickly, in the hope of obtaining consensus. It is usually more helpful to wait a while, because this increases the chances of actually getting consensus. Of course,in this particular case the interest in the article is to some extent time limited--myself, I think it will indeed be permanently of interest, but I think the arguments here will be less heated.
But the blanking or partial blanking of the article was not appropriate, perhaps to the point of being disruptive and outrageous, and should be reverted. I'd do it myself, except i have a overall opinion on the matter. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is objectively better in its stubbed form than it was previously, though. jps (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not better or worse that way; it's just empty, thus the stubbing is equivalent to out-of-process deletion. — JFG talk 14:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is better stubbed than it was before. Who are you to say that it isn't? jps (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody cares who I am or who you are. You are saying that an essentially empty article is better than an article dedicated to contentious contents. That's just your opinion. I happen to think that our encyclopedia should not shy away from reporting well-sourced controversial contents. We are WP:NOTCENSORED. Excessive WP:CRYBLP protection doesn't cut it for such prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURES who chose to come into the election fight for the highest US public office. They are much thicker-skinned than you and me. — JFG talk 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree this is being discussed in 3 different places and it should go down to one. Also agree with DGG on everything he said (except I've already reverted once). Finally, yeah, this was _very_ well sourced. I think "disruptive and outrageous" is correct. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Boomerang suggestions when the person targeted did nothing wrong have a tendency to boomerang against the person making the suggestion. I'm just saying. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You've done plenty. Your petty vindictiveness and penchant for escalating non-issues into dramatic conflicts is well on display at arbcomm even as we speak. jps (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


    • While I have no love for the subject matter this is entirely an appropriate place to bring out gaming of the system and disruption concerns. As the article has been completely gutted and replaced with an anti conspiracy essay from 1964, I would consider that as meeting both those concerns. Deleting large sections of articles can be done occasionally but that's like me taking a religious article, deleting everything out of it, then replacing it with an Atheist talking about why religions are wrong essay. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As the editor who first raised a red flag about this on the talk page of the article, I will state my agreement with Guy Macon that what has happened here is disturbing. The community debated an article that was, and is admittedly controversial. But we could not reach consensus on whether to keep it or not. Then a handful of editors decided that there was enough consensus among themselves to go ahead and delete the article in all but name and reduce it to a POV stub. That is bad enough. But after strong objections were raised by other editors there persists to the present moment fierce resistance to restoring the blanked material. For the record I am no fan of fringe material on the project and have personally nominated many articles for deletion I believed were non-notable and improperly being used to promote tin foil hat ideas. And I also readily concede that this article is not an easy keep or delete. Sound arguments were made on both sides at the original AfD. It may well be that the article will end up being deleted at the new AfD. That would disappoint me, but I would respect the outcome because that's the way this sort of things should be done. If you want to delete an article fine. But unless it is a clearly non-controversial situation, which this obviously is not, do it at AfD. The pro-deletion side came very close to carrying the debate last time around and may well do so at the new AfD discussion. In summary; stubbing an article that the community just said it could not reach consensus on, by deleting all relevant material and then claiming "talk page consensus" formed by a handful of editors who failed to persuade the community at a well participated AfD discussion is, IMO, improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless of anybody's opinion on the need for Wikipedia to have this article, the blanking of all significant contents, section by section, with blanking editors cheering each other up, was totally inappropriate, especially as a no-consensus deletion review was underway. I would advocate a fresh start: restoring the full extent of the article and having a wide-open RFC during which the page would be fully protected, then let people edit away taking into account RFC results. Full disclosure: I once restored a section which had been blanked by an editor in violation of 1RR, and was counter-reverted by another editor with an offensive comment; I abstained from further intervention. — JFG talk 14:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm torn. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that this is gaming the system (I !voted delete, by the way). An article that does not achieve a consensus to delete should absolutely not be stubbed when the AfD is closed.
On the other hand, I still stand by my !vote to delete. This is too soon to have an article about this subject! When the election is done and folklorists and journalists are writing about the totality of the conspiracy theories in this election, we will finally have an article worth writing.
Now, getting back to the subject of this, I have two things to say.
  1. This is absolutely gaming the system, disguised as a content dispute. I usually avoid speculating on the motivations of others (and I actually have a great deal of respect for those who blanked the page), and I will not start now. However, the facts are clear: there is obviously no consensus to blank the page, as anyone can see from looking at this thread. Let alone the article's talk page. The page should be restored to the version I railed against at the AfD. If full page protection is necessary to keep it that way, so be it. We can then go through this new AfD and see if we can't decide what to do with it.
  2. That should damn well be the end of it here at AN/I. The justification I see above for a boomerang is... Well, actually I don't see any justification. I see the assertion that this should boomerang, but no reason why (beyond the dangerous suggestion that opening an AN/I case in order to get admin attention is a problem). Furthermore, I see no evidence that the stubbing of this article was done in anything but good faith, by editors who've demonstrated repeatedly their desire to improve the encyclopedia, motivated by concerns that are perfectly coincidental with my own concerns about the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That's the tough part all right. I too agree with what the out-of-process deleters are trying to do, and will continue to do what I can to convince the community to form a consensus for deleting the article, but on the other hand I oppose gaming the system in this way even when the end result is what I wanted to happen. We all need to follow consensus even when it goes against us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, while strongly disagreeing with the back door attempt at deletion, I do not question the motives of the editors involved. I have worked with some of them in the past on other articles, especially via FTN, and think they are all good editors with honorable intentions. But I do believe in this case their zeal got the better of them. I see this as a case of poor judgement, not malicious editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I support the above conclusion. I don't think anyone meant to do a backdoor deletion, it just happened, a piece at a time. That being said, I do hold those individuals who have used the revert button to undo attempts to restore the material responsible, and I have a low opinion of anyone who supports deleting material sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept just because some other material in the same article is sourced to the National Enquirer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the above comments and those on the talk page of the article I am satisfied that there is at the very least no consensus to substantively blank the article. To which end I have reverted the article to the most recent attempt by Guy Macon to restore the controversially deleted material. I have also requested full PP to last until the close of the ongoing AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think it highly inappropriate to claim consensus on the basis of whining on WP:ANI. If an admin wants to move in and protect the page or something, let them. jps (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And I've done just that, for a week. Airplaneman 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The article has been blanked yet again despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favor of this action and arguably there is consensus against it. I am starting to view this as deliberate disruptive editing and believe that an admin should step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
An admin has stepped in and protected the page. Now let's get back to actually discussing the actual content rather than citing arbcom cases that are 9 years old. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
In this ANI discussion, are we really here to discuss the content? Or are we here to discuss whether content blanking is disruptive? It actually would be nice to have some policy guidance about that. Unfortunately, 9 years old was the best I could do. I'm not questioning the motives of the editors here, but I find it alarming when this sort of thing happens. JerryRussell (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
C'mon, man, do you really think that citing 9-year-old precedent (best that you can do for a reason -- Wikipedia has evolved much since then) is helping us answer the question of what to do when editors WP:BOLDly stubbify an article that was documented to have many problems in an AfD closed as no consensus? Content discussions absolutely should trump (excuse the pun) this kind of stuff. jps (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I could also have cited Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others or Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal, but those are just essays. Or there's the template text itself, which says that articles shouldn't be blanked. It seems to me that removing all but a stub, is not much different from blanking. If the concern is BLP issues about Hillary's head injury, that content could be removed or edited to improve neutrality. The article contains several other sections. If, on the other hand, there's a community consensus at this point that massive sourced content removals immediately after failed AfD's are just fine and dandy, well, I stand corrected. JerryRussell (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Stubbornly stamping one's foot and declaring fealty to made-up processes on Wikipedia is an increasingly problematic aspect of the culture here. What is worse is that there really are no rules per se that explain what you are supposed to do when a discussion about deletion ends in no consensus. The normal thing to do at such point is to return to normal editing. That could include bold rewrites of an article and this is not the first nor the last time that such has occurred. By insisting on ninny-ism that seeks to sneer at editors working to remove problematic content from an article for which there was no consensus to delete, you are contributing to an atmosphere that values process over content, rules over quality, games over encyclopedia. jps (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't the topic, the problem is that it was written as a giant BLP problem with a predetermined POV. When the article describes the opinion of doctors with descriptors that undermine their credibility and then identify them as part of a conspiracy. That is not okay. Same thing with mentioning unrelated indictments without conviction. When one side of a campaign calls an issue legitimate and the other calls it a conspiracy theory (with a a long history of labeling all criticism as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy"), these issues are simply political campaign issues and not something we can cover real time or make conclusions about. The press will cover it from every aspect including legitimate concerns and conspiracy theory. We don't carry their water. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor was deleted. The content was literally copied to an article with "conspiracy theory" as the title. This didn't make the content better, more encyclopedic, more neutral or anything else in WP's interest. If we want to cover candidate health, put it in their bios. If we want to cover the question of health as a campaign issue, put it in the campaign articles. Topics like this evolve and even this weekend, "new revelations" of minutiae will be discussed. We don't need articles on it keeping score and we don't need sections that disparage living people that offer opinions that are sought out by ever hungry press. If there is "Gaming the systtem" occuring, it is by editors creating articles titled from a campaigns talking points and then trashing the detractors. It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I truly have no opinion about the merits of the article. I haven't read it and don't intend to participate in the AfD. But it was restored with an edit summary stating that it should not be blanked again; there is an AfD running, and articles should not be blanked while at AfD, as the template itself states; and then it was blanked again and immediately after that was full protected. I went to the talk page to ask that it be restored but I see a statement there that this discussion supersedes the talk page discussion on the blanking. So here's my request: revert the blanking, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • My God. WP:WRONGVERSION is something everyone who hasn't read should take a moment to read. There is currently a discussion on the talkpage as to whether there is decent sourcing for claiming that the Hillary Clinton "health rumors" are a conspiracy theory about the presidential election. They may very well be, but the sourcing needs to be addressed). jps (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I suppose this article is eventually going to be kept. But, if it is, it needs to be kept on a short leash and forced to only mention things which are reliable. pbp 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Really? Have you looked at the AfD? I am rapidly losing any hope that the article will be kept. And with the blanked version now locked with little hope of being able to restore the material deleted (despite the clear lack of consensus for the mass redaction) I am more or less resigned to its being deleted. Indeed I am very close to voting for deletion in the AfD myself given the current article is just a POV coatrack and no longer has any real relation to the subject of the title. If you have some reason for your optimism I wish you would share it. I could use some encouragement right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Always darkest before the dawn? I think the current version is less of a POV-coatrack than the version you preferred. In any case, there is a discussion at the talkpage. If you are despondent over this, let's try to come up with a better idea of what a good article on this subject would look like. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientum: I wouldn't necessarily call it optimism...more like realism or cynicism. COATRACK articles have become harder and harder to delete of late. Plus, 2nd nominations generally trend more keepist than 1st nominations do. pbp 19:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) once an AfD is closed, normal editing resumes, (2) the content that was removed was discussed on the talk page, (3) editor's upholding one of our core policies, WP:BLP is not an attempt to game the system, (4) an argument based on "but it's reliably sourced", still doesn't override our BLP policy, (5) in a contentious topic area under DS, I would expect to see a firm consensus to keep, the first AfD about HC's brain rumor article resulted in delete and the most recent AfD was no consensus, (6) I agree with Dheyward that the topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Does anyone think The New York Post is an acceptable source for contentious material about a living individual, (7) Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Observation The reason an article goes to AfD is usually that it comprises a predominance of unsourced or poorly-sourced statements. When they fail AfD, we should expect and welcome the efforts of editors who continue to remove the disqualifying content. The ones who are "gaming the system" here are those who insinuate that this kind of normal article clean-up is "back door deletion" and the like. Next one who plays that card should get a time out. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page. There's a talk page section for each item deleted. A good first step in restoring the Ted Cruz related conspiracy theory would be discussing why it should be restored. Same for the other sections that were removed and discussed on the talk page. What happened instead was an accusation that an end run around the AFD process was being made and without discussing the merits of the removal the entirety of the material was restored. An AFD was made that resulted in no consensus. A DVR that endorsed the "no consensus" followed. A new AFD attempting to achieve a consensus has been made. None of this amounts to gaming the system. Removing items from and article and attempting the discuss it doesn't amount to gaming the system.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that "They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page" previous discussion for the section I am currently discussing on the talk page, and all I see is a WP:CRYBLP claim that any coverage of Hillary Clinton's health is a BLP violation. The closing AfD admin ruled against the claims of a BLP violation, and the other admins endorsed the close at deletion review. The BLP argument was made during the first AfD. If the closing admin or any admin reviewing the close had found a BLP violation, that would have resulted in an instant delete per Wikipedia policies. "BLP" isn't a magic word that lets you get your way without actually establishing that there is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I may have missed it but in the close it seems as if it was ruled there was no consensus. I didn't catch where he ruled out the BLP. The BLP is not a magic word. Typing WP:CRYBLP on ANI doesn't remove your obligation to use the talk page of the article and make your case that there is no BLP violation. 1 person opened a discussion that the section on Ted Cruz was a BLP violation. 2 people concurred. It was restored without any actually discussion other than the position that they were making an end run around the AFD. There is a BLP Noticeboard and seen people take discussion there. But for some reason, I suppose since you are "right", you have no obligation to discuss this. And it's not that I am saying you are wrong and there is in fact a BLP violation, I take no position on this. BLP or not, thats a content matter. ANI is for conduct. IMO, there is no case here for any conduct issues. If there is no BLP issue you should have no problem making your case, whether on the talk page or at BLPN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not material about a conspiracy theory regarding Hillary Clinton's health violates WP:BLP has already been decided, and I am not going to re-argue the point with you. If there had been a BLP violation, the closing admin and reviewing admins would have been obligated to immediately remove the material as soon as they identified it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's already been decided that the was no BLP with that section before it was removed? Then link that discussion. Oh, wait, no that's not what you're saying at all. You are saying that admins have God like powers and you have no obligation to engage in talk page discussion because admins have perused that article. Bullshit!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When an article has survived a deletion discussion and a DRV, blanking it and then protecting the blanked version is an obvious end-run around our processes. A few editors spamming the talk page with a massive quantity of text does not constitute a consensus that overcomes these processes; in fact, the sheer quantity of text and its argumentative tone is a very effective deterrent to other editors joining in and helping out. The outcome here has been severely suboptimal, and yes, I'm well aware of WP:WRONGVERSION and I'm disregarding it with all due forethought.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Guy Macon just made the same point I made at the article talk page. In my book, that sneer about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement comes uncomfortably close to a BLP violation in itself, and while I've heard bad things about the editing environment at our US politics articles, I'd thought that was a canard. Now with all the sneering and assumptions of bad faith, I'm glad I have to deal with these editors relatively rarely.. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────RE:@Guy Macon:Mr. Macon has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I am linking a comment I placed there in a forgetful moment. Here it is. Mr. Macon has a recent history of disruptive and battleground editing on American Politics. GuyMacon's BLP-violating edit I asked him to undo was, fortunately, immediately undone by a passing Admin, @Acroterion:. Other recent lapses by Mr. Macon at the Seth Rich article include the following: PA edit comment battleground, esp. vs. editor @Steve Quinn: goofy threats failure to engage on talk page threats again etc. etc. At some point, a TBAN from American Politics would seem appropriate. I have posted this here because of @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: jps' suggestion of a boomerang finding regarding Guy Macon. I have unhatted and clarified relevance here. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally oppose the punitive action you are suggesting here. I can not see this as anything but a good faith question about questionable practices. While it is possible to say some of the article falls foul of BLP I sincerly doubt that the entire thing would qualify. The essay replacement of that information is pointy at best and disruptive at worst. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing it, I'm endorsing jps' recommendation. It is not punitive. It is preventive. Please don't complicate the discussion with "punitive" SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Oppose to any suggestion of BOOMERANG sanctions against Guy Macon. There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith in raising the issue of the improper blanking of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Those concerns have been echoed by a very large number of highly respected and experienced editors. The above post by SPECIFICO appears motivated at least in part by a heated, but unrelated dispute with Guy Macon. Attempting to use unrelated threads, the legitimacy of which is beyond serious contention, to advance one's side of a personal dispute is pushing the envelope of propriety and could be seen as FORUMSHOPPING and or CANVASSING. The comment which does not in any way address the issue raised in this thread should never have been posted here. I take no position in the dispute between these editors as I am not familiar with it and have no intention of getting involved. But this is not the place to resolve it.-Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If WP had the same functionality as Skype, you all could see my WTF face right now. Usually I edit with a bit of a smile (or sometimes a blank look, complete with drool), but right now, I'm dumbfounded. The 'evidence' given above by SPECIFICO of Guy's supposed poor behavior is beyond specious. In some of those links, I'd venture to suggest that the motivation was to imply wrongdoing while knowing full well that the diff didn't illustrate any wrongdoing. AGF is important, but I really can't reconcile how someone can take that first diff as a personal attack in any way. The only possible explanation I can imagine is that the user damn well knows it is not, but doesn't think anyone will check. In every other link, the claim of bad behavior is either arguable or just a clear misunderstanding of what was being said. This is ridiculous and this thread needs to be closed before it creates any more pointless drama. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, this thread needs to be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If jps and I am wrong, then this thread will meet no further support. If Guy Macon has in fact shown a pattern of disruptive editing on articles related to ARBAP2 then other editors will voice their views. Either way, the community doesn't close a thread after a few minutes because a couple of editors don't like the subject. As you'll note in Mr. Macon's instructions to me on his talk page, he prefers I raise this at ANI rather than offer him a collegial warning such as the one I copied here. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It needs to be closed because it's utter nonsense. While I view Guy Macon's claims here as wrong (but very reasonable), I also clear that they are genuine. He in fact thinks that folks are trying to game the system. There is no reason to believe that he is here in anything but good faith. If the community agreed with me, that his position was wrong, we'd set a piss poor precedent by banning him without some justification of bad faith. Your diffs are unrelated to the topic at hand. I won't bother discussing them other than saying that I doubt any community action and they shouldn't be discussed here. Ciao.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
PROCEDURAL COMMENT: Could an uninvolved administrator please split this off into a a separate section and give it a neutral title? Specifico has every right to file an ANI report about me, but he should not hijack an existing discussion to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolute Oppose to the suggestion Guy Macon should face "boomerang sanctions." Besides, we just had an editor with a long disciplinary history removed Talk page comments from two other editors (I restored) [7]. If that, of all things, is not sanctionable then we've established, by precedent, this page is a total free-for-all. BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My Final Comment There has been a lot of discussion on this thread. Some of it good and some not so much. More than a few seem to view the merits of the article as the issue. But that's not right. The only issue here is whether or not a handful of editors, likely acting in good faith, should have effectively deleted an article only days after it survived an AfD via blanking of all relevant material. From WP:BLANK...
Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. It is also sometimes necessary to blank an article which is a copyright violation in its entirety – for instructions, see Copyright problems.
I respectfully argue that what was done, was grossly improper. And the impropriety was compounded when the blanking was rigidly enforced by edit warring even after other editors objected. If an Admin wants to take some formal notice of what went on here, fine. If not, life will go on. In the end it's likely moot. The life expectancy of the article is probably no more than days given the current state of the ongoing AfD. Arguably this entire argument was pointless since the blanking was a fait accompli and the article is all but certain to be deleted anyways. But I believe an important principle is at stake here. Namely that no single editor or group of editors has the right to unilaterally delete an article by blanking all of its content (save in the few exceptions admitted by the guidelines).
This issue has now been discussed or debated by my count in at least four different places and it's time for me to move on and drop the proverbial stick. I support the motion to close this thread and invite any uninvolved admin to do so and if so inclined make any judgements. I will have no further comment on this issue here or elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Celestinesucess patrolling problems[edit]

Not now Marvellous Spider-Man 00:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Celestinesucess has huge problems with page patrolling. She patrols many non-notable articles. Many users have left messages on her talk page before me that they have found problems with her page patrol, User talk:Celestinesucess. Someone should ask her to stop patrolling pages improperly. She can tag them, or nominate them but should reduce the speed of patrolling. She doesn't check the notability if the article claims to be notable but is actually non-notable. I don't know how many non-notable pages she has patrolled which helped those articles to survive deletion process. . --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only have you not provided specific examples, but I can't seem to find the discussion you had with her about these issues before you brought this to ANI. As for the multitude of editors leaving her messages about this, I only see three non-automated notes about her patrolling: the first tersely explains that the patrol should have been BLPPRODded (April); another simply states that the unreviewing editor would like others to have a look (MrX, July); a third expresses dismay, points out that the subject has few likes on Facebook, and describes all the sources as being PRIMARY (Marvellous Spider-Man, September). None of the messages properly explain what she was doing wrong, give her guidance about NPP (a start would be pointing out the NPP information page and the NPP checklist), ask her to slow down, or seek to open a dialogue with her. An ANI complaint seems like overkill. Rebbing 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There are other messages also which are single lines. She has opened account before me. How I will give her explanation. I will take this discussion to WP:NPP if ANI is not right place. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Marvellous Spider-Man: I saw the other messages: those are automatically delivered by the page curation tool; they can be sent by mistake when a patroller tries to mark off a page that has already been patrolled. As for addressing this, I suggest you start by politely raising your concerns with her on her talk page. Provide her with guidance and some recent examples of what you consider to be incorrect patrols. You should only ask for outside help if a one-on-one conversation has failed to resolve the issue. Also, the NPP noticeboard is WP:NPP/N. Good luck. Rebbing 00:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Favre1fan93 3RR Violation[edit]

Implicitly withdrawn by blanking (diff). Rebbing 21:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:3RR. Good faith edits to Batman: Arkham Origins. 1 2 3. 2603:300A:1510:A900:64F0:2C39:EF11:3CE6 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. I also notice you didn't bother to discuss the edits - you just reverted the first revert. This is a typical content dispute - take it to the talk page if you want to press the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Violating WP:AGF,WP:TPO, general incivility[edit]

USER:Erpert filed a request for closure stating "This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors." USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edited Erpit's comment, calling Erpit's comment an "obvious WP:CANVASSING violation. I am a completely uninvolved editor, I have read through AfD in question, and it appears to me a closure with a result of "no consensus" would be entirely appropriate in this situation, and/so I see no evidence of canvassing in Erpert's closure request comment. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's editing of Erpit's comments is a violation of WP:TPO, and his accusation of canvassing fails to assume good faith. I reverted Wolfowitz's initial edit with an admonishing to AGF, [8] he reverted me, so I posted a warning on his talk page for both the AGF and TPO violations, and restored Erpit's original text. Wolfowitz posted a comment on my page where he told me not to post warnings on others' pages where I don't understand the policies and accused me of incompetence. This indicates to me Wolfowitz has no intention of ceasing to edit other users' comments inappropriately, or of returing to assuming good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Additional Comment - looking through the ANI archives, it seems that there is bad blood between HW and Erpert going back at least a couple years, and Erpert has requested an IBAN at least twice, but no action has been taken. If these two can't interact collegially, perhaps an IBAN should be revisited, but in the meantime, editing the comments of someone you already have a negative history with is not really a very wise move and weakens the assumption that your motivations were unbiased and without malice. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Mmyers1976 does not understand the guideline he cites. WP:TPO expressly refers to talk pages, not to noticeboard pages. Erpert, an involved editor, used a request for closure to lobby for their preferred outcome in a deletion discussion. I redacted the lobbying. Requests for closure are made on noticeboard pages, not talk pages. The page at issue. WP:AN, is a noticeboard, not a talk page. WP:NOTICEBOARDS, the governing page, does not prohibit the removal of disruptive material. It is common practice to cap and hat disruptive posts to noticeboards, and my action was less drastic. I've removed/redacted inappropriate material from noticeboard posts before, uncontroversially. It should be evident that using a request for closure to canvass/lobby for one's preferred outcome in a contested deletion discussion is contrary to practice and a disruptive form of forum shopping; none of the other pending requests do such a thing, and I've never seen it done before. (It may well have been done, but it's far removed from acceptable practice.) My actual post to Mmyers's talk page said that quoting a guideline regarding talk pages "as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence". That is, frankly, quite accurate if blunt, and for an editor who has been active since 2007 not to recognized the difference is extraordinary. And it's certainly no worse than Mmyers's casual, and groundless, accusation that I ignored WP:AGF. (Mmyers' comment that disputing his interpretation of a guideline on his talk page indicates a lack of good faith is illogical at best and a rather clear example of the failure to AGF on his part. I'd also note that Mmyers edited my post to his talk page to remove all of my discussion of applicable guidelines, then posted a reply implying that I wasn't familiar with those pages. Editors have a great deal of leeway in maintaining their own talk pages, but selectively editing another editor's post in order to gain an advantage in an argument is clearly not acceptable behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
TPO DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the top of the Talk Page Guidelines, which states "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply," and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." As for your continued accusation of canvassing against Erpert, I leave it to the volunteers and administrators here to determine if there is any merit to it, but WP:CANVASSING DOES NOT allow you to respond to suspected canvassing by deleting it, it states "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." The Talk Page guidelines allow for removal of others' personal attacks, copyright violations, libel, posting of personal details - ie, comments with legal ramifications. Canvassing is not such a legal concern, and as the Talk Page guidelines say: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived". And to clarify, I accused Wolfowitz of failure to assume good faith when he accused Erpert of canvassing, I did not accuse him of failing to assume I was acting in good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out, it has been common practice to cap and hat or redact inappropriate content on noticeboards. Even if TPO applies to noticeboards, it is a guideline allowing reasonable exceptions. The fact that a particular form of insppropriate behaviour is not included in a list of examples does not make it appropriate, and WP:TPO allows the removal of various forms of "prohibited" and "harmful" material. Attempts to use requests for closure, which should be neutrally phrased, as forum shopping to open a forking discussion of the merits of a proposal, if tolerated generally, would be disruptive and timewasting, which certainly strikes me as harmful, as it will many if not most reasonable editors. WP:TPO also allows editors to "hide" off-topic material -- and the merits of a particular proposal are certainly off-topic in a request for closure, which should deal only with whether a discussion is ready to be closed. It also strikes me that redacting disruptive material which is also a clear violation of standard practice is preferable to escalating to a noticeboard discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talkcontribs) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see the problem with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits here; I can see why Erpert's request would be viewed as canvassing for a closure in line with his favoured outcome, and redacting certain posts has long been allowed in cases like this. Number 57 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I wasn't canvassing at all; and I requested that an uninvolved admin do the honors, not "do the honors and close as no consensus". Said admin can close the discussion however s/he sees fit. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • How do you explain inserting "[redact obvious [[WP:CANVASSING]] violation]" inside Erpert's text without leaving any attribution?  Is this neutral wording?  There is accusatory language in both the "CANVASSING" and "violation", and an intensifier by the use of the word "obvious".  Is it not a concern to you if someone edits your text without attribution?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at WP:CANVASSING, but I don't see your meaning in there.  Canvassing seems to involve getting editors to show up at discussions unfairly, not suggesting an outcome to closers in advance of their closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:TPO states, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Another example of an accusation of canvassing, from today HW has made another accusation of canvassing since the first incident, this time at [9].  I replied at [10], but haven't received any explanation.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Another editor, User:MichaelQSchmidt, has weighed in with this diffUnscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding the word "another" in the words, "...another display of improper WP:CANVASSING.", there is no antecedent.  WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? lists "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."  The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying identifies such accusations as a "serious personal attack."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with the OP: WP:AGF, WP:TPO, general incivility.  I'm adding WP:No personal attacks, WP:TPO edit warring, and false attribution.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is it common practice to use the AN/Request for Closure for an AfD ?
Off-topic discussion about a different editor and a different incident. Should be reported in a separate report
I am also weighing in here with a diff. Unscintillating's action in this AfD appear to be canvassing from my perspective - and that's seven years on Wikipedia. It can be seen that they are pinging all "keep" Ivoters from the previous AfD pertaining to Nicole Aniston [11], [12]. In my opinion, this is inappropriate and seems extravagant for an AfD. Currently, this is the second AfD nomination for Nicole Aniston. Also, although Unscintillating points out that User:MichaelQSchmidth appears to have opined, Schmidth is an involved editor [13] who showed up after Unscintillating's pinging of "keep" Ivoters had occurred.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Preceding para fails to mention that there was only one Delete in the previous AfD, and that person had already !voted in the current AfD; therefore they were aware of it and did not need to be notified. Thus the user notified everyone who !voted in the previous AfD who wasn't already aware, and it's not his or her fault the previous AfD was a unanimous-minus-1 Keep. After reviewing WP:APPNOTE I disagree with the assessment of canvassing (although that's only 3 years on Wikipedia). ―Mandruss  13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That's patently inaccurate. Unscintillating didn't ping the nominator of the prior AFD, only the keep !voters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Point taken. Read bad faith in that if you wish. ―Mandruss  15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Steve: There are no rules against bringing a closure of AfD request to ANRFC. I did it the first time because the AfD ran over seven days (after which it was relisted by a neutral admin); and then I did it the second time because it ran over fourteen days. If discussions like that stay open that long, it can really mess up the backlog. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The paragraph also doesn't mention that he is the OP for this sequence, and is on record for objecting to giving the targets of his comments a chance to respond, diff, and this diff.  The later diff comes after he was notified of the Wikilink WP:APPNOTEUnscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Talk about jumping to conclusions at best. There is no way that I on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond. This is idiotic!
Unscillintating is making assumptions about motives that I don't have, as a rationale for canvassing. Unsintillating is exceeding the editing parameters conferred to Users by Wikipedia. In other words, this person appears to be acting in a manner that he or she knows other's nonexistent hidden motivations, that he or she has special authority to ping others to come to an AfD, and that he or she has special authority to exceed policies and guidelines by doing this. My view is - this is, at best, irrational behavior. This is also evinced by seeming battleground editing behavior before they summoned others to this AfD; to wit:
First, Unscintillating asserts "Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary" [14] (This is not a problem - it is simply an assertion).
Second, User:K.e.coffman replies "I don't believe that AfD discussions 'confirm notability'. Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change" [15]. (This is simply a reply - no problem).
Next, Unscintillating says, "So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?" [16]. (This was already answered by coffman and I see no merit to asking this question}.
Then coffman rationally replies [17] as follows:
"Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:
  • Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
  • Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
  • Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
  • Keep "per X & Y"
  • Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.
Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions".
Next Unscillating repeats themselves - "So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?" (to me this seemed pointlessly argumentative and seeming to engage in a battleground editing style).
After this I stepped in by agreeing with coffman - "The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions." [18]
This was followed by Unscintillating calling in other keep Ivote editors [19]. (This might or might not be another salvo commensurate with battleground type behavior). Steve Quinn (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Unscintillating stating that I was "on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond" is inaccurate. There were no targets of comments. I was addressing the comments, not the editors. This is not appropriate to misconstrue my editing or my behavior. Again, Unscintillating is attributing to me motivation or underlying perceptions that were not present. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Words have meanings, and you have above used the word "patently" to describe your ability to determine who I pinged and who I didn't ping.  For the record, there were three editors I didn't ping: a keep !vote, you, and the nominator.  Subsequent to your report here, I have pinged the nominator.  Also for the record, the nominator has not edited at Wikipedia since May 2015, log

    The definition provided by Google on a search for [Patently] gives "clearly; without doubt".  If it was so "clear and without doubt" to you that I had not pinged the nominator, and that was the only ping that was needed, why did you not make the ping?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

    • Well, Unscintillating, it's pretty clear you're not disputing the accuracy of my word use, only making an odd complaint that Bad Old Wolfowitz didn't correct the screwup you hadn't brought yourself to admit. And while you now point out that the nom hadn't edited recently, that can't be the reason you didn't ping them, because you pinged Scalhotrod, a long and notoriously permabanned by the WMF sexual harasser, as well as VandVictory, a banned sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement Needed[edit]

User:79.180.125.113 made edits [20] to Qasr el Yahud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which may be construed to be in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 with regards to the "reasonably related" clause, given the anonymous editor's edit description reading: "As of today, 4 September 2016, there is no state of Palestine. This area is within the state of Israel." RegistryKey(RegEdit) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ineluctably. Muffled Pocketed 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If one construes it that broadly, then ECP should be slapped onto the article. I'm undecided whether it falls within ARBPIA3 though. Others may have differing opinions. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
ECP should not be added. The article itself is not ARBPIA, but any edits that are ARBPIA related are subject to ARBCOM sanctions. But we don't need to protect the whole article. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (repost)[edit]

Original Post: JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. --79.12.1.50 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. I repost it because I posted it wrong, not to the bottom as required, sorry.--87.3.18.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Just to repeat my longstanding proposal that if we simply eliminate coverage of four low-value subjects -- footy, music genres, beauty pageants, and professional wresting -- traffic here at ANI would be reduced 30%. EEng 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and porno actors/actresses.
Forsooth, I merely proposeth removing the genre categorizations in infoboxes and leads, my liege! (I suspect that discussions of genres buried in the text proper are too much trouble for genre warriors to find. They all seem to be idiots.) EEng 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) And no, I'm not serious. At least not completely.

What fools these mortals are! And calleth me not Shirley.
Seriously, while User talk:JustPsymo remains a red-link, it seems there will be no immortals administrator action taken here. Can someone who groketh WP:ANI closing tags please close this?
Pete "Seems, @User:EEng and @User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, nay it is; I know not 'seems.'" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Other vandalisms today (reverted): here he don't removes genre but deletes a reference. This is pure vandalism, and this is a vandalism-only account that insists also here, in spite of warnings, revert and noticeboard. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Other vandalisms using an IP (Special:Contributions/89.65.151.116). --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
JustPsymo is vandalizing, using an IP to add back his vandalisms reverted by users, as did here. I reported him for ongoing cross-wikipedia vandalisms. I don't think is the case to close because his talk is red. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The first step should have been posting a message on JustPsymo's talk page before going to ANI and then notifying him of this thread. I have done that now and have also blocked IP 89.65.151.116 which had received multiple warnings before. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

SPAs removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group article[edit]

The above red-linked SPAs have been removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group, which has been twice restored, the second time by me 30 minutes ago. Here is the revision history for the article [21] because it would be cumbersome add 8 or more diffs here. Probably need semi-protect for this article and if someone is so inclined - check for socks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. SinarmasID has just created a content fork of Sinar Mas Group on his/her user page. [22], [23]. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Note: SinarmasID was blocked indefinitely by Seraphimblade for "Promotional username, promotional edits" --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Etiquette on Simultaneous Substitution page (talk)[edit]

I have previously edited a page, and long accepted changes made by others to correct some newbie mistakes. Two years ago I sympathized with another reader (on the talk page), about limitations Wikipedia rules impose on editing. I mused that perhaps Jimmy Wales might allow ignore all rules if asked; I did not make the request.

Just recently, an editor of apparent repute who disagrees with me on a political issue in television broadcasting in Canada, was somewhat uncivil over my daring to raise the subject of ignore all rules - two years ago! I have noticed this individual used the f-word in a dispute with someone else over editing of a page concerning a court case in Canada. Not particularly administrator appropriate behaviour.

Not sure how this is handled, but wanted to tell someone.70.71.6.57 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

After two edits to render the page Talk:Simultaneous substitution readable, it appears the OP here is miffed because Bearcat reverted some poor edits he made and told him why. Don't see anything that needs any action at all. The talk page on that article should probably be archived to hide all the SOAPBOX, but can't see any problem with Bearcat, whom was not notified of this. He's pinged. John from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Page movers can now delete pages as opposed to just titles[edit]

Did I miss a discussion? When was this implemented? I don't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Page mover. I presumed I'd be slammed with the notice that I couldn't move the page if it was blocked, and have to perform a round robin move as usual move if desired, not automatically delete the page. I happened to notice an entry in my deletion log which previously couldn't happen (Special:log/Godsy), or I wouldn't have even known. As a non-administrator, I can't view what previously resided there. So I unknowingly deleted something that I can't even restore or view. Would an administrator please history merge what I deleted with the Wikipedia:Navigation templates redirect. Pinging Andy M. Wang because I think it's a good bet they might have some relevant information. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. You moved over a redirect whose only revision was pointing to the source of the move. It's just new that this gives an entry in the deletion log. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 148#Entries showing up in deletion log. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, so this isn't specific to page movers as I assumed, and it was a regular move over redirect. Striking part of my comment above. Thanks PrimeHunter.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have mentioned it there.[24] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_deletions_in_deletion_log - the latest software release includes additional logging for this type of action now. — xaosflux Talk 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat/legitimate copyright concern?[edit]

There seems to be a consensus that there is no real copyright issue here, and that User:Fentener van Vlissingen's edits here are not problematic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I get a second opinion on whether this constitutes a legal threat or a valid copyright concern? My instinct is that the complaint is baseless, since the images in question seem to be clearly long out-of-copyright, but it's safe to say that Dutch copyright law is not my forte so I'm a little reluctant to start dishing out blocks and warnings (in either direction) without a second opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Netherlands copyright term is author's life plus 70 years or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown. Based on that, all the pictures look to be in the public domain (though asking at commons:COM:VPC couldn't hurt). This looks more like a dispute over the terms of use of the website. I don't know if the website owner can legally restrict the use of public domain images just because those images were taken from their website. They would have to show that they own the copyright of the images. clpo13(talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Well the deep-linking argument has been made previously and been rejected every time it came to court (that I am aware of) so it can be safely ignored - content owners keep trying however. Deep linking has some details. RE legal threat over copyright - Depending on jurisdiction, people who feel their copyright has been infringed are first required to notify the (alleged) infringer before legal action can be taken (in order to give a chance for the material to be removed). Its not a notification they will/are taking legal action, its saying 'you are infringing my copyright, please stop, if this is not stopped, legal action may be forthcoming'. Which is a reasonable request (if someone feels their copyright has been violated) While an argument could be made it falls under the chilling discussion, there are very few ways to notify wikipedia/editors they are potentially breaking copyright law without some reference to legalities. On the face of it, the allegations should be investigated. If some of the images are out of copyright, but only available through a private collection, as far as I am aware it would still violate WP's policies on image use? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the last question, that would certainly be a question for Commons, where the images are hosted. There's also the matter of the difference between date of creation and date of publication. If the author is unknown and it can't be shown that an image was ever published, then it might not be public domain. clpo13(talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I was literally just about to post the same thing - if the photos etc are in a private collection which has not been 'published' per the definition, the reading of the Netherlands law would mean its not public domain. WP:Public_domain#Publication states "In short: A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large." Hosted in a private collection for use by researchers etc only is certainly not 'public at large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that (talk). It also means that the article User:Fentener van Vlissingen refers to is not applicable here! (Michel Doortmont 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
What about the fact that the picture has changed? It's now a digital image and it might be under new copyright, similar to how old movies on DVD are copyrighted from time of DVD not time of production. If I scan in an old picture and preserve it, what is the copyright status? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on what has been done to the picture (see commons:COM:SCAN). If it's a faithful reproduction, then it retains the original copyright status. If there have been enough enhancements to suggest a significant level of creative input, then that might warrant a separate copyright on the enhancements or even as an entirely new work (if, for example, an originally black and white photograph is hand-colored). clpo13(talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of this sounds like the same situation from National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, with the only question and unclear nature being if the original images are in the PD due to age or not. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Well the key difference there is of course, the art is available to the public through the NPG regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
From my understanding of WP:NLT, even if someone is right about a copyright violation occurring, and even if they are required by some authority outside of Wikipedia to state that they will take legal action if the copyright vio is not removed, they still must be blocked indefinitely until they remove the legal threat, because:

To prevent damage to the project, this policy removes editors who make legal threats on Wikipedia. The editor is not blocked just because "it's a legal threat", but because the block:

  1. reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
  2. reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
  3. reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
  4. prevents a situation in which someone is seeking to be a collaborative partner while setting themselves up as a legal adversary.
I'd also note that the person making the legal threat did not just threaten to take civil action, but also accused a Wikipedia editor of "theft under Dutch law". Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I just note the falsification of history in a claim made on the website, "European men and African women struck up lasting relationships, that were both an expression of personal cross-cultural intimacy and a means to build a common social, economic and even political structure"? Shouldn't this simply say "European men frequently stole and raped African women"? I know, not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Completely off topic, Drmies. As it calls my academic integrety in question, I do think a short response here is in order, perhaps to continue teh soapboxing elsewhere. Colonialism in any form indeed led to rape and other atrocities, I do not deny this. However, when you care to read the materials and maybe register for the website and read the stuff there, you will notice that not all relationships were of a violent nature. And that is what that project is about. (Michel Doortmont 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
    • Is that, like, reverse political correctness? clpo13(talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't make me have to block you for soapboxing, Drmies, I've been itching to block an Arb for years. On a more serious note, I also dropped a note off explaining some and asking them to withdraw the threat. I prefer to coax them in the right direction rather than swing the ban hammer carelessly into the void. Dennis Brown - 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm the user involved. I just want to say I acted in good faith. It was my understanding of copyright law that those images are in the public domain. It seems I may have been wrong, and if so I apologize. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • We need to hash it out at [Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] calmly. My gut says that if the images are in the public domain, you have violated the terms of use of the website (so he can ban you there) but there isn't a legal standing. That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it isn't cut and dry. That is why we settle it at CV, with legal@ only as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Moonriddengirl as this may require her expertise. Dennis Brown - 18:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This article (in Dutch) suggests that those unpublished works cannot be copyrighted under Dutch law since late 1995. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Article 39 of the Dutch copyright law also seems pretty clear: "Voor werken, waarvan de duur van het auteursrecht niet wordt berekend naar de bepalingen van artikel 37 en die niet binnen 70 jaren na hun totstandkoming op rechtmatige wijze zijn openbaar gemaakt, vervalt het auteursrecht." Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I agree that the original works are out of copyright. But I'm also getting the impression that Mr. Doortmont does not share our point of view regarding PD-art. Per Wikimedia policy (and US law), faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright 2-dimensional artwork cannot be copyrighted either. There may be constrasting views though. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Good faith meaning not reading / complying with the regulations of the website and not registering before using the materials? I am sorry,but I find that hard to believe User:Fentener van Vlissingen. As for the images that come from the website direct, these were / are photographs from private collections that never have been nor are now in the public domain. They only ended up there, because they were illegally acquired from a closed website. The fact that they now seem to be in the public domain does not change that legal position. With regard to the previously published photographs, these were also not in the public domain at the time they were published, as they were part of a copyrighted publication of which the author was still alive (most likely at least) by 1942 or 1943. The materials have a retrieval date on them in Wikimedia Commons. So this is at least an issue for further debate at least. Legal "threat" removed from comment. The copyright law for the previously published photographs is that of Ghana or the UK (place of publication is obscure, but either one), and in both cases it is 70 years after the death of the author (i.e. 1942 or 1943 + 70, most likely). As these photographs were taken from the republished new edition of 2004, and not the original edition of circa 1928, there is another copyright question to be answered: does the re-publication in a compeletely different format revive the copyright or perhaps institute a new copyright? I believe it does. But my real beef is with the private photographs which were taken from the website repository without permission, and which are not in the public domain (Michel Doortmont 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).
Thank you for removing the threat. We don't concern ourselves with the policies of other websites, only the legal status of the images. As Jo-Jo pointed out, the images are actually hosted at Commons so you need to go to commons:COM:VPC to file the complaint. I can assure you it will be investigated in a reasonable time frame. Dennis Brown - 19:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I will do that. Currently my complaint about infringement of the right to use the texts from the website, as well as the way of linking to it, is with Wikipedia. I felt compelled to lodge the complaint, because in most articles the copyrighted materials are not easily removed. Although an editor of Wikipedia articles, I do not feel the urge to undo the work of another editor who infringed on my, or other peoples rights, in good faith or otherwise (Michel Doortmont 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).
Can you show us some examples of text that was taken from your website? So far we have only debated images here, but if original text from your website has been used in Wikipedia articles of course we need to check this too. Or do you just object to links being set from Wikipedia to your site? De728631 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If I may defend myself: I have not taken over texts literally from Doortmont's website. I have only incorporated the information given on his website (dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career) in my articles, which I have written in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has focused on whether the complainer's copyright claims are valid. But the original question was whether their edits constitute a legal threat. I would note that WP:NLP says "A polite complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat" and goes on to explain the proper channels for pursuing such claims. And I don't think we can quibble about what appears to be a normally worded legal notice of infringement being somehow "impolite."--agr (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation of Willem George Frederik Derx[edit]

I have now also been accused of copyright violation for the text on Willem George Frederik Derx. I did not copy any of the text of Doormont's website, but merely cited his website as the source of the information of dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career, etc. The article has been written in my own words. I don't see how I violated his copyright. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Doortmont's website requires registration and login, checking the original content is not that easy. Creating a user account requires disclosing your real name, so I at least don't feel very compelled to become a new user just for this single issue. Maybe someone else with a real-world Wikipedia user name could have a look? De728631 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Doortmont acknowledges that I did not copy text from his website and that I wrote it down in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I to understand from the copyright notice pasted on that page, that it is alleged to be a copyvio of itself? Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user removing speedy deletion tag excessively[edit]

Abhinash oberoi was indefinitely blocked by Widr for using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes. North America1000 11:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user Abhinash oberoi continues removing speedy deletion tag from a page he created(Rainforest italy) after being warned many times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talkcontribs) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a spammer straightforwardly ignoring a level 4 warning not to remove speedies, it's already been reported at WP:AIV. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frauke Petry[edit]

User temporarilly blocked for edit warring. The content dispute, as has been pointed out in this thread, is for the article talk page (non-admin closure) Muffled Pocketed 12:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tataral tries repeatedly and aggressively to push his version using contentious material to label the person as far-right in the lede, removing majority sources saying she is right-wing (see also Alternative for Germany). I reverted backed by WP:BLPREMOVE. Today, he didn't discuss his version anymore and started edit-warring again, though I reminded him to discuss. I was already insulted by him as "extreme-right" in the article history, see also article talk page. Please block the page/the user, at least until a consensus is found. Thank you very much in advance.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

BLPREMOVE does not provide you with an exemption for edit-warring in this instance. The BLP violation has to be egregious, and as far as I can tell, you and Tataral have a significant difference of opinion. Both of you are edit-warring, and both of you should be blocked. I strongly suggest that you not revert again, even if Tataral does (your version is now in place). Meanwhile, I'll let this thread play out a bit before deciding whether action is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Gerry1214 criticized me for templating him for edit warring without contributing the ANI thread, so I'll say something. I agree with Bbb23 that BLPREMOVE is not a Get Out of Jail Free card you can use whenever you disagree with an editor on a BLP. The dispute seems to be over "is a far-right politician" in the lead vs "has been called a far-right politician" in the body. Since this is a German politician, I can understand how a newer editor might get carried away and think this is an egregious BLP violation. There's a certain connotation to "far right" that I imagine would be even stronger in Germany. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214 is a relatively new editor who is clearly here on a mission to portray far-right German politics in a more sympathetic light. While the description of her in the lead is an important issue, he is also reintroducing biased statements in the body of the article, for example "in her party Petry represents the national-conservative faction supporting policies of national self-determinism", in Wikipedia's voice, as if this is an uncontroversial fact instead of being her own opinion, and reintroducing a completely meaningless section heading hierarchy, e.g. with "Wolfgang Schäuble" as a first-level heading(!).

Describing a politician who is described as far-right by reliable sources as far-right has nothing to do with "BLP" – Petry is widely described as a far-right politician by experts in the field, including Cas Mudde (as cited in the article) and many others, and advocates, among other things, the shooting of refugees. In English far-right is a relatively neutral term and simply means "the most right wing". I'm not aware of anyone disputing the fact that AfD, and particularly Petry's faction within the party, is positioned significantly to the right of Germany's mainstream right-wing parties (CDU/CSU), and belongs to "the most right wing" part of German politics. --Tataral (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said anything about potential connotations because it probably misled you into thinking that this is a valid place to argue your case in the content dispute. It's not. I'm sorry about muddying the waters like that. I was trying to explain (and apparently failed) how two good-faith editors could end up talking past each other, make accusations of POV-pushing, and edit war: "far right" can mean different things to different people. If you two go back to the talk page and talk civilly to each other, maybe Bbb23 will get distracted by something else and forget about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not new, because I was active in dewiki since 2012, this is propaganda like that I'm here on a mission, since I created lots of articles of any political colour, see e.g Helmut Holter or Konstantin von Notz. Labelling Frauke Petry as far-right (German: "rechtsextrem"), is clearly wrong, see Alternative for Germany. I wrote more on the article talk page, why this is clearly wrong. I created a balanced version, which included the statement of Cas Mudde, that he said she is far-right, while Tataral removed BBC/Reuters sources that she is right-wing, which are clearly in majority. So my intent is to put both positions in the article, Tataral wants to label her with his pov. This is wrong and clearly justifies revert on behalf of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Gerry1214 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring at the article, Gerry1214, and let discussion proceed. You have reverted multiple users now, including an IP user 74.70.146.1, as well as Tataral. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I have reverted you, partly because I think Tataral's version is better, but also partly because the edit warring you have engaged in is objectionable in itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You have not a single valid argument, why it is better to suppress BBC/Reuters sources. I don't know why want to label Petry as far-right, probably some don't like her. I don't support her, but I will defend the balanced version, not the labelling version.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but at this stage it doesn't matter what arguments I do or do not have as regards the content of that article. The point we are here to discuss is that your behavior, which includes the reverting of multiple users who disagree with you (one of them being me) is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know on what a stage you're on, but factual arguments and sources should be the only thing that matters here, as in my version and not in yours. My behaviour is appropriate, because some clearly try to suppress information and label a person.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to edit war against multiple users (myself, Tataral, and 74.70.146.1), as the article's revision history shows you have done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Gerry1214 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Anthony Duran[edit]

BLOCKED
Anthony Duran was blocked for 99 Hours by Dennis Brown for WP:Disruptive Editing (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite their recent 24-hour block for edit-warring, Anthony Duran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made it very clear that they do not intend contribute in a constructive manner. A description of their behavior can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Love interests in harem anime content dispute, which they responded to by attempting to blank the discussion. They also regularly blank their own talk page and have attempted to delete sections on other's talk pages as well (see this). Given that they have stated their intent to continue with this behavior, a long-term block may be in order. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the kind of message I wanted to get while coming on. What bothers me is that the user made no effort with any form of communication until confronted by a final warning message in the form of an apology on my talk-page. Even after I said over and over "Discuss first" the editor chose to continue to POV push. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Now blocked by Dennis; I think the next block will be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kind of what I was thinking. I felt 99 hours was generous, maybe he didn't get the message last time, so this is long enough for reflection and to make a choice. Dennis Brown - 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent copyright violation[edit]

New editor User:Rash014 has been repeatedly pasting large chunks of copyrighted text from medical journals to oral cancer ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). I've posted at his/her talk page three times, politely asking for an end to it, but I've not had a reply so far. Little Will (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was an extract, the licence clearly isn't CC compatible anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

AFDs on a number of olympians and other notable articles[edit]

Wasabi,the,one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems, after having been blocked for disruption, come back with a clear intent of getting as many articles of clear notability deleted on flimsy grounds ("not notable other than playing in the olympics".

Examples include

Seems to be a WP:POINT issue in reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Healy. Obviously a block has had no positive inpact. Also approaching the editor has shown no improvement. I would suggest a topic ban on AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My gut feeling with this user is they're a sock of someone else, based on apparently being a "new" account, that went to going to AfDs pretty quickly after being created. Most of those AfD rationales are incredibly poor (look at Beal-Gaillard House, for example) and I'd support a topic ban in that area. And on top of that, they create articles like this! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick tune up on Dyken Pond. It's still a stub, but it now has an RS source and I think it passes GEOLAND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I gave what should be seen as a last warning on his page. Dennis Brown - 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • And I can't argue against your gut feeling in this case, Lugnuts. Dennis Brown - 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The general disruption, the activity at AfD, the creation of articles like the one linked to (