Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive934

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Tigrayans[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puhleec. Resourcer1, please stop using other editors' usernames at the end of your posts. It's very confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 18 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.

  • Hi

Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' ≈noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans

the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes

and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite

  • the references are there, not to spoil the work of others
http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/tigrinya.html
http://www.ikuska.com/Africa/Etnologia/Pueblos/tigrinya/index.htm
http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.org/saint_yared.html
http://www.st-gebriel.org/Styared/gab_yared_music.htm
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/kaleb2.html
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/periplus.asp
https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/KingdomOfAksum_StudentsWorksheets.pdf
http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C/Aksum/300-310CE-Aphilas/300-310CE-Aphilas.htm
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_ezana.html
https://books.google.it/books?id=YTGRcVLMg6MC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Ouazebas+axum&source=bl&ots=qd0ji6e1Es&sig=jRzAKemdzj_pFW4v-dVhBWckEi4&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim4dPpi7LNAhXGDBoKHYBoCTs4ChDoAQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=Ouazebas%20axum&f=false
Bibliography
Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F.
E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247.
Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211
S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91.
letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3
See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016

--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This issue was reported two days ago, and was archived. User:Otakrem says that this is a content dispute, and that Otakrem says that they are removing unsourced material. I commented that I think that there is a language limitation, and that the filing party has difficulty in explaining what the issue is. If this is a content issue, I suggest formal mediation with a mediator who may be patient enough to tease out what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Otakrem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed.Resourcer1 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What I added is per Wikipedia guidelines. The version of the Abyssinian people article that you and EthiopianHabesha have been reverting to is Contested because it is a Amhara-Tigrayan Biased POV. Reliable sources were added to the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity Resourcer1, you claimed to be Eritrean Tigrinya and think that being Eritrean Tigrinya gives you the authority to dictate how the Article should be? Just as EthiopianHabesha uses his identity to dictate how the Article should be. Well that goes against Wikipedia guidelines. I can edit just as you can, as long as I provide reliable sources from Primary and Secondary sources. I edit in good faith however, there has been alot of sneaky edits adding "Abyssinian" where it doesn't belong by EthiopianHabesha. Per WP:TRIBE see the discussion at [1] You are more than welcome to Discuss the additions which are backed by reliable sources.Otakrem (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hello Robert McClenon, Just to inform you Resourcer1 wrote this on Abyssinian Talkpage [2] see Diff [3], I do not think this is permitted per [4](this seems a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Just as I stated above, I have been discussing the article and on why it was POV for so many years, my additions would bring it to NPOV even if Resourcer1 disagrees from his/her POV. Nonetheless, I am being attacked here by Resourcer1 for daring to be Bold and edit an article that has been POV.Otakrem (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Is something actually being done about this user (Otakrem)? I have filed a report and I am still waiting. I see he has been reported by others on this site too but nothing is still being done.EEngNorthamerica1000Resourcer1(talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Resourcer1, you have just removed two comments in this discussion by Otakrem with this edit. If intentional, that is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. I have restored them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Voceditenore Sorry it wasn't. I want to know who I need to contact to deal with these reports, otherwise, the edits by this user are going to carry on. Resourcer1 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Have I been blocked? my regular Otakrem account doesn't allow me to log in. So I created this second account Otakrem2. If I have been blocked, then I have not been informed and for what reason? The fact that my side of this CONTENT dispute has turned into a false issue on "conduct" not only by this Resourcer1 person but his/her alterego/co-consipirator.EthiopianHabesha..If you can't discuss and Boldly Edit in wikipedia, then what is the point of Wikipedia? To any Administrator, has the User account, Otakrem been blocked or somehow unable to log into my account? If so, I would like to know? Otakrem2 (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've only created Otakrem2 and have made it clear who I am. This is ridiculous.Otakrem2 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You've been banned for a reason and now you have made a second (and maybe third) account.Otakrem2Resourcer1 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
FTR, User:Otakrem has not been banned? Muffled Pocketed 12:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Well he has made a second account and he has many reports against him, yet the behaviour is still allowed to carry on? This page is becoming a mess Abyssinian people and it just needs an overall lock. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Where is this ban coming from? Btw, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otakrem. Dennis Brown - 12:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis BrownThank you. Otakrem stated he couldn't access his account, therefore I was assuming it was a ban. He has now made an additional account and I believe CowardlyAbyssinian is also him. Many reports have been filed against him and nothing has been done so far. I will wait. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I disagree, I only created this Otakrem2 account. As soon as Dennis Brown tells me that my Otakrem account is working,then I will logg off Otakrem2. If Otakrem does not work, then I will continue with Otakrem2. I want to make it clearly known that Otakrem2 = Otakrem, and Otakrem = Otakrem2. I will drop one or the other although I prefer to stick with Otakrem since that has all of my history.Otakrem2 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't tell you what is and isn't working. I can only say there is nothing in the logs to indicate a reason you can't log in. Dennis Brown - 13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Dennis Brown I just logged off from Otakrem2 and tried to log on with Otakrem account and I got the following message: Central user log in No active login attempt is in progress for your session. Return to the previous page. What does this mean with the Otakrem account? I am able to log in with the Otakrem2 account, hence I am typing this from.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't know, I'm not a dev. Dennis Brown - 13:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(Non-administrator comment) NOTE: I have merged the three separate threads into one as they were all effectively about the same thing. This place is crazy enough without having the same thing three times! Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User Otakrem[edit]

  • Otakrem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Constantly adding unnecessary information that is politically motivated on page Abyssinian people. Edits have been removed many times but this user is not stopping, and this is not the first time (some of these edits are racist too). ---> I have added the report I accidentally put on the vandalism section (which it should be in too I believe) here. The user Otakrem has been highly disruptive, mainly since the beginning of this month. Unnecessary information has been added on the page I mentioned above and it is beginning to show that this user has just made this Wikipedia account because he is politically aggravated. It is getting ridiculous now as I did think the Wikipedia team would have had this sorted out by now, but it is still carrying on. I have checked the user's talk page, and it looks to me that he has been reported twice already, so I don't understand why this behaviour is still being allowed to carry on, it makes adding new information hard when having to deal with constant edits that need to be removed. Resourcer1 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Report on same editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tigrayans --NeilN talk to me 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
DoneResourcer1 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the article and talk page are in dire need of administrator eyes. Muffled Pocketed 12:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User Resourcer1 Resourcer1 Deleted my comments in Abyssinian people article Talkpage[edit]

See the Diff [5] and Diff [6] where the Resourcer1 has deleted my comments in a section. This is disruptive and vandalism. Otakrem2 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What's disruptive is that you have made a second account after your first one got banned. On top of that, you are spamming the talk page and using effects to show your anger. The page is becoming a mess and by making two more accounts, you are making it even harder to deal with. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You deleted my comments. I will wait for administrators to decide. Otakrem2 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Your comments were not signed so it could have been you or the other account you supposedly made. Stop being disruptive, the information added was spam, in caps and unnecessary.Resourcer1 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Still waiting Administrator response to User Resourcer1 deleting my comments See Diff [7] Is this acceptable behaviour, outright deletion of another editors comments?Otakrem2 (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of spam once again.Resourcer1 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Again Resourcer1 is deleting my comments in a Talkpage, See Diff [8]. If he keeps deleting my comments from a Talkpage, then this is Unacceptable Behaviour. Administrators awaiting your response to this continuous Vandalism of my Comments by Resourcer1Otakrem2 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Resourcer1 Stalking Me and Has deleted my Comments for the 4th Time See Diffs [9],[10], [11]. I am being Targetted by Resourcer1, this is Harassment and Vandalism.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Harassment? Vandalism? I am simply cleaning up the page that you keep messing up. Stop adding disruptive text on the page and if you are going to add it, write it sensibly.Resourcer1 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are Harassing me, vandalising my comments by outright deleting them and stalking me in two three articles. Your tone is always confrontational with me as you are displaying it here.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
All right that is quite enough. First Resourcer1; 1. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. per WP:TALKO, I suggest Otakrem2 either hat it under something like "extensive material open to view". 2. Edit-warring to remove somebody's comments, unless it is clear vandalism, libelous material or something equally problematic is a sure fire way to get yourself a block. Second Otakrem2; 1. Resourcer's removal of your comments is not vandalism, nor does this seem to be approaching harassment yet, however, it is disruptive editing. 2. If you could abbreviate your comments that is appreciated but not necessary. Do what you will with it. Otherwise, both of you need to stop and discuss. That said; Resourcer1 What's disruptive is that you have made a second account after your first one got banned. which account? and what's the evidence? Nevermind. Threads conflated now everything makes sense. I'll be going through the talk page now. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As of the time of my comment, I note that KrakatoaKatie has indeffed all three of the suspected sock accounts of Otakrem pending the CU check to be completed, these are; Otakrem, Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not trying to vandalising anything but remove the spam. Look at the format of his comments. The user has been banned now so I do not wish to make any edits on the talk page or the main Abyssinian people page unless I see disruptive editing again. I do wish for this page to be watched or locked though.Mr rnddudeResourcer1 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Block[edit]

The Otakrem2 accounts have just been indef'd for socking by KrakatoaKatie. Procedurally absolutely fine; but the timing is perhaps unfortunate. He presented a technical reason for doing so above, which was seemingly accepted by an admin. The problem now is that resourcer1's actions- who has been just as culpable in the recent disruption / edit war- will not be scrutinised as they should. My two bob. Muffled Pocketed 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to sort that page out. The comments: some were in complete block letters, some bold, and on top of that it wasn't exactly necessary. He was also deleting my comments, it's just hard to notice when the page is reverted because his comment was of greater character length. Many other users have had an issue with this user, I don't believe what I have done is wrong, this issue was taking far to long to be responded too. It has been going on since the start of September if you check the Abyssinian people page, which I think should be locked.MuffledResourcer1 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's down to administrator discretion (not myself of FIM). I wouldn't bother with a page protect now as Otakrem is unable to edit it, and if they do make another sockpuppet and continue editing that'll just reflect poorly on their case. Right now we're all going to have to await a CU's decision as to whether the socking is abusive. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, well. The filing party had requested moderated dispute resolution, but had complained about conduct issues and sockpuppetry, and I had to close the DRN thread as being reported as a conduct issue. It now seems that there really has been sockpuppetry, which is a conduct issue. It isn't clear to me why they engaged in sockpuppetry, but that doesn't matter, because sockpuppetry is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon The reason the user done that was to probably make the edit war look like it was more in his favour, with his sockpuppets on his/her team. There is no other explanation for it to be honest.Resourcer1 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon the use of sockpuppets is permitted if there is a legitimate reason for having one. The current official story from Otakrem is that they are unable to access their regular account and created a sock for that reason. The opposing/competing view point is presented above by Resourcer1. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Technically no. Sockpuppetry refers to the illegitimate use of alternate accounts. I am fully aware that there are permitted reasons for the use of alternate accounts, but that is not considered sockpuppetry. As to using an account that differs from the primary account by one letter in order to create the appearance of numbers to "win" a content dispute, that is a flimsy attempt. If they had a reason for using multiple accounts, they should now send an email to OTRS. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so it is. My mistake. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The user Otakrem not only made the account Otakrem2 (because he somehow couldn't access his account), but also the account with an insulting name, CowardlyAbyssinian. I didn't specifically say he made Otakrem2 to win a content dispute, but I am sure that's what the second new account he made was for (CowardlyAbyssinian). He had no legitimate reason to create two new ones, only one was needed but he continued to make another one and start editing the same page the original account was targeting. Mr rnddudeRobert McClenonResourcer1 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't actually know that yet Resourcer1; you assumed so in order to edit war. I make no judgement on the reasons given for the alternative account (or, for that matter, the one with the naughty name)- but I advise editors interested in this affair to look at Talk:Abyssinian people. The history, and both behaviours- are enlightening. Muffled Pocketed 15:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't assume so in order to edit war. An edit war was already going on between Otakrem and another user, I put in my say afterwards and then the edit war started again as Otakrem was not happy. Out of the blue, the two users Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian decided to undo my edits together, and at the end it was found that both of these users were Otakrem. There was only one edit CowardlyAbyssinian made in his/her history and it was in this edit war, therefore, I figured out straightaway who it was and filed my report. MuffledResourcer1 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a note to the SPI case, but feel it is worth repeating here. I myself in the past, have found that I have not been able to log in (actually, I was bumped out). I had exactly the same error message that Otakrem2 reports that he received when I tried to log in again. I posted on this noticeboard about it (the wrong place, I know, but that is where it was). Otakrem2 could not have made up the error message so precisely unless he had actually seen it. It is also worth observing that, according to the edit histories, there is no overlap in the editing. Otakrem has not edited while Otakrem2 was in use which goes some way to support his claim. Further, if you are going to create a second account to 'support' the edits made the first, adding a '2' to the original account name must rate as the dumbest move as it is blindingly obvious. As I see it the claim of not being able to log in is highly credible. As for CowardlyAbyssinian: I can only observe that, accepting that Otakrem and Otakrem2 are the same editor - a point not in dispute, then unless CU proves a link, one solitary edit does not a sock make, though the timing of the account's creation and edit is suspicious. But suspicion is not evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, Otakrem2 and CowardlyAbyssinian are all the same person. He/She has been caught out already. Why would a new account be made and that account suddenly goes onto the page his other user was already in an edit war on? Otakrem couldn't access his account so for that reason he made Otakrem2, but there was no reason to make CowardlyAbyssinian too, right at the same time.Resourcer1 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
DO NOT append my signature to your posts. --Elektrik Fanne 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said at the SPI case, I have no objection to unblocking one of these accounts if there is indeed a technical problem. Any admin can do that if I'm unavailable. However, we're seeing this little kerfuffle at four administrative noticeboards in the last 48 hours (here, SPI, AIV, and RFPP) and I'm becoming annoyed. I'm about to lock everything everywhere, block everybody, and hide all the precious in Mordor. (I said Narnia on the other page, but Mordor is better.) Katietalk 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It was not a technical problem only, that was only at first. Otakrem made Otakrem2 due to a technical issue. He then carried on to make CowardlyAbyssinian, which he had no reason to.KrakatoaKatieResourcer1 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Check the timings. You are wrong. CowardlyAbyssinian was created (and made its sole edit) before Otakrem2 was created. If he was going to edit under Otakrem2, then by your logic, there was no reason to create CowardlyAbyssinian. But checkuser is running as I type, so we will have to wait and see.
On the other hand, it looks like they are socks of someone else, so good catch. --Elektrik Fanne 16:45, 18 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.

Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories[edit]

Jed Stuart has stated he will respond in two days, and normally I would wait, but the support for putting a stop to the "editor exhaustion" and time-wasting caused by this editor in their favoured area is so unanimous and heartfelt that no response can make a difference in this case. Jed, please post on my page if you wish to protest the topic ban I'm instituting. There is some disagreement on the scope needed: 1) electronic harassment, 2) electronic harassment and conspiracy theories, 3) all forms of pseudoscience and fringe theories, 4) indefinite block. With some reading between the lines, I have found 2 supports for alternative 1, 3 supports for alternative 2, 4 supports for alternative 3, and 5 supports for alternative 4. With the alternatives divided up like that, the indefinite block has the most supports; but of course the support for some kind of topic ban is much stronger than for a block (including some supports for a t-ban with no specified scope). Conservatively, then, I have banned the user from all pages related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories. I hope this doesn't turn out to invite borderline disputes, or disruption in other pseudoscience articles. If needed later, I'm prepared to extend the ban to all forms of pseudoscience and fringe theories based on this discussion, with no need for another ANI discussion (=more editor exhaustion). Also, a t-ban from pseudoscience can be instituted through ArbCom discretionary sanctions, i. e. through my single discretion or that of another uninvolved admin. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 18 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.

I have been involved in a months long dispute on Talk:Electronic harassment over whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon. WP policy is very clear on this, per NPOV and RS, we must use the consensus of psychologists that this is a delusion. However, one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months. Except for a handful of IP editors (a very small handful), he has no support on that page. Despite this, he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon. Following are a list of links demonstrating Jed's refusal to drop the stick and get the point:

Jed's failures at using normal channels to get his POV put into the article

Jed explicitly attempting to push his fringe POV into the article

The list goes on and on...

I have asked a number of members, including Jytdog and Staszek Lem who have not responded whether they would support a topic ban for Jed. Of those I asked, I have listed those who did respond below. Note that the responses so far have been unanimously that they would support a topic ban.

So now I (really, we) am asking for some uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban on Jed. He should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support indefinite TBAN broadly construed from all articles or discussions relating to "Electronic Harassment" pseudoscience and fringe theories with the exception of noticeboard discussions where he may be named as a respondent. I think the OP(s) have made their case though I am willing to reconsider if Jed Stuart posts a plausible response. But the numerous diffs posted and a casual look at the talk page history seems to show an editor who is unable to differentiate fact from fringe theory. This would raise obvious problems in the form of WP:PROFRINGE and also CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I am expanding my TBAN support to include all forms of pseudoscience and fringe theories as generally understood by the community in deference to many of the comments below. My Support vote/comment has been edited to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: :Based upon past behavior, I expect Jed Stuart to once again trot out a bunch of URLs that he claims portray the mind controlling of so-called 'targeted individuals' by the US government as possibly being a real phenomenon. It is my professional opinion as an electronics engineer that what is discussed on those web pages (various government programs to develop/explore electronic weapons) all have one key difference from what the "targeted individuals" claim. The real weapons use known physics (heat, light, sound, microwaves) that can easily be detected with standard instruments. The imagined ones supposedly control your mind without leaving any trace that an electronics engineer could measure, using some principle that is unknown to physics or engineering. It's as if he used webpages that establish the existence of carpets to support a claim of the existence of flying magic carpets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' Agree with User: Guy Macon. I used to have a client who not only used a Tin foil hat, but wallpapered his bedroom in aluminum foil. In any event, this "controversy" and further and unremitting POV pushing for fringe theories needs to be curtailed. 7&6=thirteen () 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Since virtually all of this user's edits from 2012 to the present have been focused on the single topic of electronic harassment, you can click on any diff, and probably find an example of Jed pushing some variation of their POV that claims of people who believe the government is electronically beaming thoughts into their heads should be taken seriously. Over time, the article Talk page has filled with their polite but persistent advocacy for their POV, where you will find evidence of them asking the same questions again and again, only to be answered by multiple editors over and over again. And the result of Jed's constant, disruptive lobbying is editor exhaustion. Reasonable editors no longer wish to engage someone who personifies WP:IDHT. Lately Jed has taken his crusade to various forums and Talk pages where he complains that a "block of editors" are refusing to engage in discussion on the subject. In my view, we have been exceedingly patient with him, but this really needs to stop. I support a TBAN, if not an indef block based on WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite TBAN I can't believe this has been going on for months. An extraordinary level of patience has been displayed here. Enough is enough though. I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories.Capeo (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note I mentioned conspiracy theories in my proposal because, in my experience, people who have a vested interest in one conspiracy theory often have minor interests in others, and the problems displayed here should not simply be shunted off onto another CS (where I and many of the others who have supported this proposal will also be editing). Instead, what I hope to see is Jed being stuck editing only articles about his favorite TV shows, books, music, or about his profession, or more mainstream subjects of interest. In subjects where the ability to distinguish reality from fringe beliefs is not at all important, I have some hope left that Jed can contribute. My ultimate hope is that he will learn how to edit WP better, and while he is not likely to change his beliefs, perhaps he will learn how to collaborate, drop the stick and abide by a consensus he doesn't like. At that point, given some evidence, I would support his ban being dropped. But for now, I suggest he be topic banned indefinitely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason I would mention Electronic Harassment specifically, in a addition to conspiracy theories, is that it closes the door to Jed possibly arguing that EH isn't a conspiracy theory which would just lead to escalating blocks. Capeo (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed you said I think the T-Ban should specifically state Electronic Harassment in the wording though, as well as other conspiracy theories. I was, effectively agreeing with you, though I appreciate the clarification. I think it's a good idea, as well to name this topic explicitly, and CSs generally. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: From where I sit, your opinion is as valuable as that of any of the other parties. Being involved in the dispute merely means that you don't need to click through the diffs to form an opinion on the subject. Admittedly, it will take an uninvolved admin to implement the ban, but involved editors should certainly have their voices heard. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite TBAN, to include not only "electronic harassment" but also "conspiracy theories", broadly interpreted. Jed included me in his recent mediation proposal even though my previous involvement in the issue, if memory and searches serve, amounted to one sentence from me (now archived here) written in support another editor's lengthy analysis. A review of the links to talk page discussions, dispute resolution attempts, etc., as linked by Jed from the arbitration discussion (half of which I had to clean up as the links he had provided went nowhere useful), will quickly illustrate Jed's "broken record", "I didn't hear that" behavior and, worse, an enormous amount of multiple editors' time spent in response. In all that effort Jed has presented no RSs at all to support his arguments that the experiences of "targeted individuals" (self-described) are anything but delusionary. Even the article he uses as a centerpiece, the one from WaPo, does not back him up; his interpretation that it does is due to very selective reading and carefully chosen interpretation (points that have also been detailed to Jed several times). He alludes to many references to "projects" and "intentions" and "goals" and "possibilities" of electronic mind control but most of them are of poor reliability and the rest end up talking about conventional techniques like propaganda. Nowhere has Jeb offered a RS to a study that says yes, we've shown that you can turn on a gadget here and, via a transfer mechanism that is undetectable except for the desired result, put thoughts in a person's head over there. (I include the "undetectable" provision to rule out things like product placement on TV, which is somewhat effective, could be considered "covert", but is easily detectable.) And finally, many have raised good technical reasons for why such a thing is very unlikely to be possible. It's long past time to say "no more" and put a stopper in this time sink. Jeh (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block. Jed Stuart has demonstrated complete indifference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's very clear he is here with a specific agenda. The chance that he will contribute productively to any topic area is approximately zero. Just ban him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Block (first choice) or topic ban (second choice). As Someguy says, the chances of Jed ever doing anythign productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer. This has been like debating Mike Corley in the golden age of Usenet, and nobody needs that. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Jesus, I haven't heard that name in decades. Still too soon, man. Too. Damn. Soon. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer Indef Block but I'll take a TBAN. There is a vanishingly small chance that this user will ever do anything useful for the encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban because the editor will not accept the consensus view as shown in the OP links. There is a minor discussion at my talk on this issue, and the mediation request is a further misuse of community time. An indefinite block would follow if constructive contributions in other areas were not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    I hope on this occasion that I will be given the right of reply. I was not in the three earlier attempts to block me here. see below. All conversations were closed before I could comment. Also, please note that I have limited time on the internet, so my response is slow: 1-3 days. I have not time to read the above now, but will comment in two days.
    #Sea_Lions - Sea_Lions_Not_. - Edit_warring.2C_block_evading_conspiracy_theorist_IP_on_Talk:Electronic_harassment - Jed Stuart (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    No need to wait two days to close this. Support for a topic ban is unanimous, and I don't think there is any reply that would change that. 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've had some interaction with Jed when I closed, as an uninvolved editor, a couple of discussions he was involved with. This caused Jed to declare me as "obviously adopting the attitude of the other side". It really is that binary for Jed - you support him in his mission to let the "truth" be heard or you are part of an evil gang dedicated to suppressing him. Others above have detailed the tedious, time wasting disruption, and I concur. I support a topic ban from pseudoscience as a minimum, but also agree that, with as much history to examine as we have, the chances of him ever doing anything productive and unrelated to this agenda are close to zero, so support indefinite block (or ban, since a block in these circumstances would be pretty much a de-facto ban, as I understand it). -- Begoon 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a topic-ban from electronic harassment. Oppose a broader topic-ban on conspiracy theories only because that is too broad and would result in wikilawyering. Would consider a ban if one were proposed, but a topic-ban for now is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for User:Jed Stuart's own good. This needs to be a topic ban, not simply an article ban, as there are related articles such as Project MKUltra and not just Electronic harassment. Oppose further action. There are some indications that he has interests in topics unrelated to EH -- for example see here. He should be given the opportunity to contribute to those areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 18 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.

Requesting webhost block[edit]

Klunk goes the rangeblock. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 00:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) (NAC)
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.

Could an admin please apply a block to 104.237.224.0/19 as a {{webhostblock}}? The webhost is run by DedFiberCo and the block will affect IPs from 104.237.224.0 to 104.237.255.255 (the entire webhost range).

It seems like we have an antisemetic troll operating on that range. See [12]. The range I requested will cover the entire webhost with no overlap into other ranges so there shouldn't be any collateral but someone may want to check my work. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked and agreed. It's a web hosting company, and it has the entire 104.237.224.0/19 block allocated to it. (See https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/DFC-52 for the ARIN company reference.) Blocked.-- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You are just having all the range block fun these days. *pouts* Katietalk 21:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg -- The Anome (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: I'm changing jobs in a few days, and the ip range of my current job has been used for more than a little vandalism. If you like, I can log out and go full on troll mode so you can be the one to do the honors.
P.S. I'm not serious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 17 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.

Can someone take a look at BOL Network[edit]

I have been trying to keep a SPA from removing controversies associated with this failed network, only for him to stonewall. Can anyone take a couple of minutes to go through the edits and give his two cents before this escalates? TouristerMan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I explained WP:BRD on his talk page a bit. I would ask you be patient, he is new, and take a look at the individual elements of his edits, see if some parts of that are worth including. If they are, you make it more likely that he will listen to you if you allow those bits in up front, in good faith. Dennis Brown - 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown TY. I already added most of the information he wanted before coming here. TouristerMan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, good. Forgive me for not analyzing every edit, I don't know the topic. Then we wait. I gave him some pretty clear guidance, with clear consequences. Dennis Brown - 19:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • He has started to edit war now. Reported to warring board. I will highly appreciate some seasoned editors joining for some time to take a look at the article and edits. TouristerMan (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to hand off to AN3, although I have tried to correct his misconception that 4RR means "it's perfectly fine to revert 3 times in 24 hours". Dennis Brown - 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kristijh[edit]

Kristijh renamed the 2016 Citronelle, Alabama, homicide article unexpectedly and without discussing it on the talk page beforehand (there is a talk page discussion about the article's title. I warned the user about it, but it appears all he/she did was revert the edit. Judging by the user's talk page history, he/she has a tendency to do that. Then once again, after probably a week of being unaware of my reversion, Kristijh renamed the same article unexpectedly and without prior discussion. Given the user's history (he/she has even been blocked for constantly blanking out his/her talk page), I would say a strict punishment is in order. Parsley Man (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And Kristijh just undid the ANI notice I sent to him/her. This user is definitely being ignorant. Parsley Man (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore ANI notices per WP:REMOVED. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 17:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There is still the matter of this user constantly renaming an article without discussing it on the talk page first, especially when there's a section available on said talk page. Parsley Man (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Parsley Man, this is a content dispute and does not belong on this board. Further, may I suggest you try communicating with the other editor instead of taking them to a noticeboard. Note; A warning is not communication, it's a warning. Actually ping them to the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Judging by the user's history of blanking his/her own talk page, I am doubting communication would be possible. Parsley Man (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... unfortunately they can do that at will. There are very few things that they cannot remove from their talk page. Try pinging them to the article talk page, they can't revert you for that without it being disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try. But if they do not respond to the ping and rename the article again without making any sort of communication, I for one would definitely believe this is something that should be discussed on ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, it does seem to be a repeated behaviour and collaboration and collegiate behaviour is expected. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Kristijh to put their case forward for renaming at the article's talk page, and I've move protected the page for 7 days whilst any discussion is undertaken. Protection will expire automatically after that time. Nick (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and potential violation of 3RR on I Am... Sasha Fierce[edit]

User has been warned (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:08, 19 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:Dan56 has reverted myself and User:Binksternet multiple times on I Am... Sasha Fierce over a dispute on the use of one word. Not only do the revision history summaries by Dan56 show ownership issues, but the thread started by him on the associated talk page here further shows ownership issues. There is an huge thread above on the talk page too in which Dan56 was involved in exactly the same thing about the use of the word from two years ago, but clearly won't let it go still. Dan56 probably realised that he is about to violate the 3RR and so hasn't made a fourth (as three have been made in a 12 hour period by him already) but it does show edit warring. I stopped at two reverts to avoid an edit war, but Dan56 has carried it on since by reverting Binksternet. I don't think a block is necessary here (although Dan56 has got a block log of previous edit warring blocks) but he definitely needs warning about it.  — Calvin999 14:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Warned for edit warring. If it continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katietalk 14:41, 17 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:SwisterTwister[edit]

*(non-admin closure) - Procedural close as discussion died off more than a week ago and all sub-proposals have been closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • SwisterTwister has been prohibited from imposing interaction bans or keep away orders against other users, except where such a ban has been formally enacted through procedure. This ban does not apply to their own user talk page. Violations of this ban will lead to temporary but escalating blocks.
  • No topic ban is currently placed upon SwisterTwister preventing them from deletion activities. It is recommended that SwisterTwister take on board the criticisms and advice given to them about their conduct in deletion activities. Most specifically their strong tendency towards deletionism and complaints about poorly formed nominations. There are other comments in that subthread too and I recommend that SwisterTwister go through them, if they have not already done so.
  • AfD closes are not considered to be a problem and this discussion is not being taken to ArbCom at this time. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:03, 20 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.

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

These behaviors could be potentially perceived as Wikipedia:Gaming the system, using such statements in an intentional manner as a technique to avoid any type of criticism, essentially trying to silence any opposition or concerns, because if a user then attempts to communicate directly about genuine, important concerns, (even in a calm, civil manner, as I have always done), the user can then just point to behavioral guidelines and threaten to go to ANI and such. I'm not stating that gaming is certainly occurring, but it could potentially be. While I understand that the user apparently just wants to be left alone, it is reasonable that questionable deletion nominations, prods, etc. will be challenged. Also, the user nominates a great deal of articles for deletion, and per this high rate, it is reasonable that some editors will have questions or concerns. The user has also requested to not communicate with me at this AfD discussion, which I have respected.

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).

In regard to performing AfC reviews, the user has many queries on their talk page from users, but rarely responds to any of them. This is concerning because reviewers should be open to providing input regarding reasonable queries from other users in relation to their AfC submissions.

Additional discussion regarding this user is located at User talk:E.M.Gregory § Re: thank you for noticing, which includes discussion about the user's AfD nominations and other matters. The discussion includes commentary from several users, including three administrators in addition to myself. Seeking community input at this time about this user's behaviors and actions. North America1000 05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified users on their talk pages about this discussion who contributed to/were pinged to User:E.M.Gregory's talk page and those in the links above. North America1000 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A request from one user to another not to comment on each other is usually honored, tho it is not a formal interaction ban. Even a request to let other people be the ones to deal with someone's work is not altogether unreasonable, if it can serve to decrease interpersonal problems. . Even a request to let others be the ones to deprod articles can be justified. Most of us do avoid taking even routine action against any particular editor with who one is at odds, to avoid any feeling that there might be some degrwe of prejudice or personal involvement. But I do know I would never make such statements, certainly not in the manner ST is making them--as the event proves, they are much more likely to arouse interpersonal hostility than to reduce it.
There is no formal obligation to respond to another editor whose article one has tagged for deletion . But most people do, even if all they say is "I only tagged it, please take it up with the admin who deleted it." In general it is a good idea to respond to anyone other than an obvious troll, because we want whenever possible to make sure people understand we are considering each article for its merits, not acting indiscriinatly or mechanically. (This is different from the obligation of an admin to respond about articles they have deleted, where it is considered necessary to give a good faith explanation, but that is not in question here.) It's difficult to say when carelessness in this respect becomes a problem, but I think ST needs to be much more careful here; it is indeed necessary to remove bad articles, but it is not up to any one of us individually to hold the dike; each person should do only as much as they do carefully and respond to properly. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for notifying me about this Northamerica1000. I often frequent AfD and AfC to a lesser extent, but I only noticed ST's peculiar behaviour at AfD when performing non-admin closures. I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes. Although ST describes himself as a deletionist, it is definitely concerning for me when he continues to !vote to delete articles where other editors have taken the time to improve the article. For example, here and here. The lack of care and attention really is striking and the failure to revisit deletion discussions is a disappointment. AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion, something which ST does not adhere to. I posted on his talk page as per the link above, but I received no such reply about his AfD contributions. Every editor should be open for constructive criticism for their edits, but, not in this case it seems. --st170etalk 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[30]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [31].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [32] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[33]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Responding to Rhododendrites' question, SwisterTwisters dismissive response to questions raised by other editors is a problem, a particularly destructive problem for the project when he is interacting with new and new-ish editors. But it is only one of the serious problems with this editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I know there are a number of issues. My question was primarily to clarify the scope of this thread, as bringing in his style of AfD comments and AfD stats broadens the topic from behavior towards other users to the content/style/manner of project contributions. ST has a number of detractors, based on previous ANI threads, and without a clear scope this might spin out of control and end with an overly complex or radical proposal fails to find consensus. FWIW. Maybe I'm wrong, though. :) Might be useful to have subsections for the different issues if they're all to be tackled at once, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with MelanieN, and would add that not wanting to interact is one thing, but outright stating that one is on a ban when they are not, especially on a forum that potentially the whole community will see, is bang out of order. That can do severe (perhaps irreparable, as some people really do believe there's no smoke without fire) damage to their reputation. When he said I'm on such a ban, I assumed he had me confused with someone else; had I been aware of the other cases, I'd have brought it to ANI myself. I have other issues with ST (such as apparent WP:OWNership of edits, as others have mentioned), but I think that's the main one being addressed here, so I'll leave my comment at that for now. Adam9007 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My personal feeling is that this discussion should be just about the so-called interaction bans. Rather than expand this into a huge discussion of all the issues that people have with this editor, that should probably happen in a different venue (possibly AN?), and with a more comprehensive introductory complaint.--MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The one-sided auto-established interaction bans (of whom I am one of the members) are just a minor part of User:SwisterTwister's long term WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude. Actually, while there are a lot of problems with this editor, the worst thing is their consistent refusal in engaging any sort of discussion and their apparent rendering any critic as an annoying drama or as a personal attack, because this dismissive approach precludes anyone from improving their contributions and understand their mistakes. When someone tries to engage a discussion in their talk page, the usual response is ST's ignoring the message, deleting it or accusing others of having a personal grudge against them, then in a mixture of self-absolution and victimhood the next step is ST's asking others to stay away and not deprod or vote in AfDs started by them because the votes are in bad-faith. For anyone thinking this could be true, I just looked at my interaction record with ST, and 100% of my keep votes at AfDs started by ST were eventually confirmed by the final outcome. What I requested to ST during my discussions monologues basically was 1) making a minimal WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion 2) Notifying the articles' creators of his prods and AfDs 3) Slow down their activities, including do not mass voting AfDs but on the contrary making more meaningful and relevant comments in the discussions. Not just I have not received any answer to the issues I raised, in spite of the same issues being raised by dozens of experienced editors and admins I have not noted any minimal improvement. I keep in seeing a very bad record as AfD nominator with articles often kept per lack of WP:BEFORE, a lack of notification both for prods and AfDs, and mass-votes at AfDs generally consisting of an ultra-vague and often unintelligible sentence. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has a potential for significant improvements, but in a collective work such as WP this unwillingness to discuss, the inability to hear others and the proofed refusal to improve their behaviour are massive problems. Cavarrone 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment My personal read is that User:SwisterTwister's behavior is tolerated by WP policies. You can nominate and propose for deletion as much as you like. Vote to delete everything. You can ignore and be rude or belligerent to other editors. You can be incomprehensible and make stuff up. You don't have to worry too much about policies such as WP:BEFORE because it is difficult to get a consensus that you've violated them and there is disproportionately small consequence for violation. On the other hand, everything I read in the WP:DISRUPT lead appears to apply in this case (including especially the WP:AGF statement in the second paragraph). Policies aside, we need to try to make WP a better place and so perhaps we need to look at applying the remedy described in the WP:DISRUPT nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
A 6 month topic ban from all the deletion-related areas should cover it. They can use that time to try and be more productive elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I would urge everyone to limit their comments to the topic laid out in the complaint, namely, telling other editors they are not allowed to comment on anything he does. No evidence for this kind of remedy (block/ban) has been established here, either in the introductory complaint, which was pretty much limited to the "interaction ban" claims, or in followup comments. As I said above, this broader discussion would need a different type of thread, possibly at AN, with a more comprehensive introductory complaint. I have an opinion on the block/ban suggestions and would state it at a more appropriate venue, but IMO this is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
May, April, February. SwisterTwister has been here repeatedly this year due to people having issues with them. This is not an isolated incident. Generally the complaints are the same, ST works too fast, does not take enough care, not open to discussion, does not perform due diligence etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The original WP:GAME complaint brought here is an individual instance in a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. I think it is more productive to discuss the pattern here. We have had previous ANI discussions to deal with the individual instances. If we continue with the same approach, we should expect similar results: discussions that fail to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The U5 was by a user massively removed my Draft nominations who never even consulted with me. Second, a topic ban is not solving the case where I was politely and firmly asked that the user distance themselves to which they agreed to at the Comfort Keepers AfD, stating they acknowledged and understood my thoughts. The subsequent following of me and even rollbacking my contribs thus notifying me in the notifications, took away the purposes of said agreement. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Alternately, repeatedly making shoddy nominations which you know are going to be picked up by someone who regularly comments at AFD is inviting trouble. Dont want someone commenting on your AFD's? Stay aware from AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Offer Hi all, sounds like maybe I've had less interaction with SwisterTwister than others have, but in the extent to which ST and I have worked together, it's been pretty constructive (e.g. successfully resolving an issue of a rejected draft in one case and a contested redirect/merge in another), and at the same time WP:BEFORE is an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately, so if I can be of help to talk this out to a resolution that satisfies everyone, I'm happy to volunteer myself to try. (Partly I'm also motivated to try to assist in this way because I share Kvng's desire to improve the overall WP atmosphere.) I'll leave a message on ST's talk page to this effect in case ST does not see it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll note I have even spent time away recently as my contribs will show and also then focusing with AfC in hopes the user would not come near me, yet it continued so my message had not gone through. Thus, after my repeated requests and comments, I was not confident anything would get the message through, especially if I have noticeably noted it causes me stress, something someone should take to mind, especially if they have agreed to it themselves. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[34] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know it involves more than one person, but the person most severe here still insists in being around me and my contribs when they know they are not welcome to be that close to me; I am certainly willing to assure and have this closed; but I want it to also be understood that I can't work calmly knowing a user is following me that closely and insistent, because it has become WP:HOUNDING. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if it you have an issue with one person in particular - what about the other seven people you said the same things to? You need to get the message here that this is a PATTERN with you, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and that the community is likely to take some kind of action if you persist in not hearing what people are telling you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Your accusations of hounding are baseless and bordering on unsubstantiated personal attacks. They are not following you. If you raise an AFD, anyone is eligible to comment on it who is not under a restriction from doing so. That you do not want them to is irrelevant and something that is your problem to fix. Either by editing in an area you know they do not frequent, or learning to interact with people you disagree with. Even if you were in a formal interaction ban with another editor, this would not prevent them necessarily responding to an AFD you have created, provided they abide by WP:IBAN Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:SwisterTwister, unsurprisingly that's exactly the kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT frustrating response which I described hours ago in my post above. Instead of addressing the issues which were raised here (first of all, accusing editors of violating interection bans which do not exist) or elsewhere, your replies just ignore the issues, depict yourself as a victim and accuse the others of bad-faith and wiki-hounding. Will ever there be a chance of accepting a critic as genuine, and discussing it, and starting/trying to improve, let alone admitting some of your actions were maybe wrong? I am frankly skeptic. Cavarrone 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (4th nomination) to the data set, where I explain to ST that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and ask for an explanation of the "talking to the closer" routine.  What I think will be found with analysis of the circumlocutions, deflection of discussion, and vague to non-existent deletion arguments, is a conscious effort to avoid statements that can be reduced by the force of reason.  I stand by my statement there to ST, "I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination..."  That would include visible use of WP:BEFORE including at least one WP:DEL-REASON in deletion nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Unscintillating, why am I not surprised to find you commenting about something that is not relevant to this main thread? Please stay away from discussing things pertaining to AfD, per CIR ("keep because it was kept before" is a pretty good indication). Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), admin here. It's simple. You claim interaction bans prevent some editors from commenting on you or, worse, dePRODding articles you PRODded. No such bans exist, so you cannot invoke them. Is that clear? As much as I've worked with you and appreciate your good work, I will not hesitate to block you if you falsely invoke such a claim again--those claims are disruptive and unsettling. Please don't go there again.

    I will give you another unasked for piece of advice: rightly or wrongly you are under continued scrutiny for your work at AfD and at AfC. This problem here is of your own making, and the result of it is more continued scrutiny. Bad idea. If problems are of your own making, perhaps you should try making them go away. Maybe you should consider a mentor, someone to talk to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Some thoughts: Telling someone to leave you alone is not a ban on them in any way, and SwisterTwister should not be treating that as though it is a ban. I understand how annoying it is to have people following you around objecting to everything you do but you can't forbid them from doing that just by telling them not to. Regarding the previous ANI threads regarding ST, consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong. Those threads shouldn't be used as ammo against him now; they prove nothing except that he gets inclusionists' dander up, and that's more often a good thing than a bad thing. ST had a weird way of expressing himself, but I seldom have trouble understanding what he means. Those claiming he's "incoherent" are overplaying their hand. I'd like to see him put more thought into their AfD comments, sure, but I have also observed that we seem to have infinitely more patience for bizarre and nonsensical keep votes than for bad or formulaic delete votes. Reyk YO! 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please look at the comments above, which are replete with links to SwisterTwister's comments at AFD, comments that truly do range from meaningless to incoherent. Many minor articles are closed with a tiny number of iVotes, which all too often includes an iVote by SwisterTwister that exhibits no evidence of having searched for sources, and no evidence of familiarity with the topic. And are you seriously claiming that getting editors "dander up" at AFD is a positive good? From my perspective, the intransigence and BATTLEGROUND attitudes at AFD are among the most repulsive aspects of the project, one that certainly drives editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of "overplaying their hand", Reyk, you are misrepresenting the case when you say that at the three previous ANI threads, "consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong." There was no such consensus at any of them. The actual closes were "no consensus" May, "no consensus to implement topic ban at this time… The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required" April, and "NO ACTION" February. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm basing my opinion on a reading of the whole discussions, not just the closing statements. The one from February, for instance, closed as "No action" because there wasn't anything resembling a legitimate complaint. Reyk YO! 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Even ignoring your battleground mentality and the lack of AGF, describing the previous ANI discussions as "deletionists vs. inclusinonists" querelles is also a plain mischaracterization, the issues of ST in other fields than AfDs (eg. patrolling new pages in two previous ANI threads and failures in interacting with other editors in the current thread) show how the problems go beyond your simplified and inaccurate depiction. Side note, WP is full of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who do not crash with other editors, raise criticism or collect ANI threads. Cavarrone 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that's unnecessarily hostile. Reyk YO! 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The aspersion at the first example I provided atop remains in place at the open AfD discussion. It would be nice if the user would consider striking the offending part ("interaction ban"). If not, perhaps an uninvolved user (e.g. not myself) would consider doing so. North America1000 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Without implying opinion on this ANI discussion nor any thoughts regarding any statements made here, I have striked out the statement in the AFD. Regardless of how this discussion ends or if anything comes of it, I felt that in the pure context of the AFD discussion itself and in order to help keep the discussion on-topic (aimed towards building a consensus regarding the article's deletion rationale), as well as bearing Adam9007 in mind (he violated no interaction ban), I agree with Northamerica1000 (as an uninvolved editor) that striking that statement out and declaring that no interaction ban exists is the appropriate and right thing to do. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I support either (a) mentoring or (b) a temporary limit (2 months) on SwisterTwister nominating more than 15 articles per week. This is due to his reckless nominations causing a tremendous amount of time loss. Having gone through a chunk of his edits, I'd say he is a extreme deletionist. I view his editing style as being detrimental to the confidence of content creators who are newbies. Alternatively, I'd say a 1 week block is in order. If SwisterTwister is allowed to continue editing as normal after this thread, I will view that as a sign of contempt towards content-creators by the wiki community. 92.19.186.75 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • IP, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A one week block would do nothing but punish SwisterTwister. You haven't even attempted to give any evidence that his patrolling isn't a net positive, and you've completely ignored the fact that most of his work, is in fact, very good. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • What we'd like to prevent is further disruptive editing. I agree that SwisterTwister makes positive contributions. I think it is clear from this and previous discussions that there are also negatives. We're not trying to assess his net contribution; There is no formula for that. We're trying to decide if administrative intervention is appropriate to address the disruptive editing. I expect this pattern to continue and so I believe it needs to be addressed. A ban on delete activities will potentially allow us to see proportionally more of the good contributions from SwisterTwister. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab SwisterwTwister iVote in an AFD he asserts that he had PRODded. I do not want to chase productive editors off, I have been inappropriately attacked on this board, and it feels awful. I truly do not know how to handle this. But I increasingly see it as a sort of WP:OWN]], not unique to SwisterTwister, but perhaps too prevalent among editors who have worked so long and hard on these pages that they have seen it all and think they know it all. I do know that it is wearisome, discouraging, and probably chases new editors off and makes others so fed up that they leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Voting to delete something he prodded (I subsequently deprodded it and MSJapan then AfD'd it) seems consistent and reasonable. What's the foul here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The issues largely arise due to ST's deletion-related activities, and communication with him with respect to these. The quality of ST's PROD and AfD contributions is poor, to the point of appearing to indiscriminately claim subjects are clearly non-notable and lack coverage simply because the articles concerned have have maintenance tags on for some time, in some cases with sources that strongly suggest notability available on the first page of a Google search, and usually with a deletion rationale that makes little sense. This is disruptive, as is ST's refusal to interact with/take notice of anyone who challenges his behaviour, and is wasting the time of a lot of other editors. A topic ban from deletion-related activities as suggested above would likely allow ST to focus his efforts in areas that cause less stress all round. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

na1k is a inclusionist. st is a deltionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an "inclusionist". For example, I have performed over 5,700 page deletions on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. North America1000 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A topic ban on all deletion discussions, broadly construed, is warranted. The users history of contributions in AFD are, as a whole, not constructive. Further participation in AFD by this user would be damaging to the healthy discussions required for AFD to function. The user repeatedly shows a lack of understanding on deletion guidelines and policies, a combative attitude and it is now reaching the point of disruption. Best would be for SwisterTwister to voluntarily agree to such a ban, and continue as a wikipedian in good standing that contributes constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any permanent or longterm topic-ban for ST. For one thing, any TBan for him should be short-term like three to six months (because he does in fact contribute constructively in AfD discussions he has not initiated, and is sometimes one of the few people who !vote on many discussions), and for another thing, as MelanieN has pointed out, this is not the scope or the point of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The scope of this ANI discussion needs to be the pattern of disruptive editing in deletion activities. If someone needs to start a new entry here with that scope, so be it but we're here and deep into it now so let's finish this thing. There have been alleged instances of carpet bomb style delete voting with marginally comprehensible justifications by ST. The fact that he is sometimes the only one to comment in AfD discussions makes these potentially disruptive contributions more concerning, not less so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Softlavender. As I said above: there is no justification for discussing a topic ban or block in this thread, because no evidence has been presented IN THIS DISCUSSION to support such an action. Some people are recommending this, apparently based on other previous discussions where other evidence was presented, but those were all closed as No Consensus or No Action, and no new evidence has been presented here. If somebody thinks there is justification for a topic ban, either from AfD discussions generally (which I would oppose) or just from nominating articles for deletion (which I might favor), they would need to start a discussion on that subject, probably at AN rather than ANI, with diffs and other evidence to support the recommendation. What we are waiting for in this discussion is 1) a recognition from ST that he cannot unilaterally ban other people from interacting with him and 2) a promise to stop talking that way. ST has not commented here in several days, and if he doesn't respond satisfactorily soon, I would recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that I'm probably heading off topic here but, from your description, I find it concerning that so much concerted effort is required to address a pattern of abuse. I would like to see it addressed and I have the wherewithal to complete the work you have requested but I am a WP:VOLUNTEER who would prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia. Collecting or searching out and reporting evidence against a disruptive editor is the kind of notfun project that tends to dampen my enthusiasm for working on Wikipedia. I suspect others may have similar feelings and so the disruption will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can make it a formal proposal (subheading) here if you want, based on past history and without a massive collection of diffs. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Personally, if ST doesn't respond here in the next couple of days, I am going to formally propose what I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I am aware of this and I hope you did not miss my point that I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia over addressing disruptive behavior of other editors. For the sake of the project, I do feel strongly that this behavior should be addressed, and I beleive that's why we have a policy about it. Is there someone interested in negotiating these procedural hoops. Is this an administrator responsibility? ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
To me, a relatively new editor, this response more or less tells me that long-standing editors who do a lot of editing on Wikipeida will be protected by other very active, long-standing editors no matter how poor or destructive the quality of their actual editing is. It makes me very glad that the building I work in is not inspected by structural engineers working according to the professional standards upheld and enforced on this board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is a new vs. old editor thing other than an a more experienced editor may better appreciate that enforcing policies requires a consensus and it is difficult to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it is time to round off this discussion with some actual proposals, and I am about to put mine here in a subhead. Kvng, I didn't mean to imply that you had to round up the material for a full-on AN report. (That is not fun; I did it once and it took the better part of two days just to put the report together.) Rather, I would invite you and anyone else here to put an actual recommendation into words, just based on what has been said here, and post it in a subhead of this discussion to see how much support it gets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying next-steps and for putting something out there. I will do a little reviewing of the discussion here and and maybe work up a second proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I had not caught some of these issues, but I will say that over the last few months, even while using my alt instead of this account, I've been actively watching ST because some of his actions were problematic. To say someone deprodded an article in violation of an interaction ban when you know that an interaction ban does not exist is a bad faith casting of aspersions, and unquestionably actionable when it is part of a larger pattern. This is gaming the system in a nomination to gain favor with those that agree with deletion of an article. This says nothing of the merits, only of the methods. There have been many problems with ST and article deletions and other areas (I'm wanting to say NPP or AFC a few months ago). We are dangerously close to strong editing restrictions at the meta level. We have spent too much time discussing this. Dennis Brown - 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis! Great to see you back! 0;-D A question: Back in May you closed this ANI report (which was mostly about NPP), saying "Closing as no consensus to implement topic ban at this time … The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required. IF ST does indeed follow DGG's advice and guidance, then hopefully we won't be back here." Do you have anything to add to that now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to just leave my statement as is. It appears plenty of the community sees the problem and I'm not sure I can add much more. Dennis Brown - 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My sense is that overall SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. I've stopped reading ST's comments, and my hunch is that closing admins don't weigh them when making a determination; it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes." (St173 above)
"... SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. ... it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them." --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Very much agree with these two statements. SwisterTwister does not contribute usefully to deletion discussions. I sense that there is good intellect underlying ST's decisions to comment or not comment, and that there is a language barrier, but for a long time, and after a lot of comments, ST is failing to improve his rationale to the level of useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I notified SwisterTwister about this discussion on his talk page, but he replied by removing my notification, saying in his edit summary, "An apparent mistake I presume as I see nothing here". [35] I'm not sure what this means, or why he hasn't responded in this section yet continues to edit at a high rate. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    Everymorning the user has responded in the below two sections several times. They are aware of the discussion and have already been notified of this discussion well before this point here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders[edit]

Closing this section per a clear consensus.

User:SwisterTwister is prohibited from trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users, and from implying that such interaction bans exist unless a ban has been formally enacted through a community process. This does not apply to requests that users not post on SwisterTwister's user talk page (see WP:NOBAN). Violations of this will result in temporary but escalating blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 01:42, 12 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.

This discussion has gone on for the better part of a week. It has been thoughtful, and various courses of action have been mentioned. But the discussion has not been focused, and as such it is likely to lead to another "no consensus" outcome. I think it's time to propose some actual wording for the outcome or conclusion of this report. People can "support" or "oppose" each suggestion, and let's we can see if we clarify consensus for one or more recommendations.

Here's my proposal: NorthAmerica1000 has clearly shown the existence of a pattern whereby SwisterTwister orders another user to stay away from him, and then "warns" them that they are "violating an interaction ban" if they remove a PROD or comment at an AfD where ST is involved. NorthAmerica provided links showing ST making such demands on eight different people. Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate. ST's response was to blame one other user for "causing him stress". ST has not acknowledged the existence of the pattern, has not recognized it as a problem, and has not committed to stop doing it. ST has not commented here since August 30, even though he has been active at Wikipedia every day. I therefore recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he must stop trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users (except requests to stay off his talk page), and that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again.

This proposal does not preclude other ideas. People could support this (rather minimal) outcome and also stronger measures. NorthAmerica mentioned problems with AfC reviews (too many too fast, failure to respond to concerns at his talk page), and others here have raised issues in the areas of article deletion and NPP. If someone wants to propose some wording, an actual recommendation, to deal with those problems, I suggest they do it here in another subheading, so that we can focus on resolving this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Otherwise this could all be brushed under the carpet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I also think something needs to be done about the pattern of low-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD but the three discussions at ANI this year came to no-consensus on those, and the present proposal seems like a bare-minimum control on ST's misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
David Eppstein, you are right that this proposal is the absolute minimum that ought to come out of this discussion. There is room for more. If you can come up with a proposal for what you think should be done, please post it here as "A proposed closure" subhead, and see if it finds support. I think one of the reasons these things keep coming up "no consensus" is that there is never an actual, concrete proposal to discuss - just a bunch of vague waves at possible, undefined topic bans. You or anyone else could help solve that problem by defining a proposed solution and posting it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. To reduce the likelihood that similarly troubling behavior and unfounded accusations will continue, I propose that the warning be extended to encompass not just the self-imposed "keep away" orders but any on-wiki accusation of harassment made outside of ANI. If SwisterTwister believes someone is harassing him, he should make a complaint here; he should not be allowed to use such allegations as a debate tactic or to embarrass others. Rebbing 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I would support that extension of the warning: that he must not accuse anyone of harassing him, stalking him, hounding him, etc. at any Wikipedia talk page or edit summary, but only here at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • MelanieN should get credit for keeping focus throughout this process.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support  WP:CONSENSUS states, "When agreement cannot be reached...editors...try to work out the dispute through discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. If this continues, a block is necessary, but for now, just a warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Acting as if you can unilaterally stifle discussion is pretty antithetical to the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment Perhaps something could be done along the lines os the current discusion on this board of JohnPackerLambert, to restrict the number of articles that SwisterTwister can PROD or bring to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I prefer not to ¡vote on this, but since I've already said something similar on ST's talk page I feel comfortable repeating it here: I too have a sense that something that goes toward reducing the underlying source of friction (while still allowing participation) would help produce a good outcome for everyone. This has understandably become a significant stressor for numerous people, and I think dialing back the opportunities for conflict would be a good way to give everyone a breather, get back on firmer friendlier ground, etc. I'm not sure a warning or a block is likely to have that effect. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Editors don't have the ability to propose their own interaction bans. If they did this would certainly be gamed. The community and ARBCOM can place an interaction ban. This is more akin to fillebustering in an attempt to keep PROD's from being challenged.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support SwisterTwister may not ask others to leave him alone, as there is a history of problems. If SwisterTwister feels harassed by any user, I suggest inviting MelanieN to offer to mediate for SwisterTwister. I think that in most cases, it is SwisterTwister who needs something explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, but I decline. Maybe somebody else will take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't see the problem as the "do not comments here" but using the term "interaction bans." I feel like the issue is beyond the communication one to a greater point about the editing behavior but that isn't at issue right now. I don't think they are productive but I don't see an actual problem with this edit (probably the summary though) and I don't see how that's actually different than what a lot of other editors do. The truth is, that exact same comment could (and was) be made on the article talk page following the deprod. Now, I agree that a warning against using the very specific term of "interaction ban" should be made as that's a specific term that isn't appropriate at the AFD but I think a complete ban on noncommunication is unnecessary. I agree that it's not productive if you are going out there PRODing articles and AFDing them to decide not to respond to particular individuals but that's ultimately going to hurt ST's ability to convince people not anyone else. If people have an issue about ST's prods, well we seem to have a weekly ANI discussion about that but that's not this issue today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support to this (minimal) action, uniterally banning editors from deprodding articles ST (often wrongly) prods or from voting to keep articles he nominated for deletion, and warning them for that, is not just inappropriate, it is not acceptable. The only purpuse I can imagine for this actions is to discourage such experienced editors from reviewing ST's questionable work, and to dismiss their arguments. Lack of response by ST in spite of multiple requests (and pingings) to provide a relevant comment here are enough evidences of the issue still existing and potentially repeating. His only two comments in this topic were complaints about a non-existing WIKIHOUNDING, with nothing addressing his actions or suggesting he understood the problem. A mentorship would be also useful to prevent further ANI theads related to other issues. Cavarrone 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. MelanieN's carefully thought out proposal is a minimal but effective manner of preventing disruption caused by ST's unfortunate pattern of false statements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - What is an offical warning and what would be the consequences of ignoring such a warning? ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
An official warning is one delivered to him by an admin as a result of this ANI discussion. The consequences would be temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - but only because to oppose would result in no action whatsoever, again, and reinforce the perception ST must, by now, have that there will never be any repercussions for his problematic behaviour. The poor-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD will need to be addressed eventually, as evidenced by the regularity with which deep concerns about their negative effects are expressed - but today, it seems, is not to be that day. -- Begoon 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Begoon: See Kvng's proposal below. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that in at least some instances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Gagliardi SwisterTwister's lonely and unsupported opinion can indeed (contrary to some opinions above) trump editors bringing The New York Times and the London Evening Standard as evidence of notability (AFD on bio of minor figure in the art world).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As a new-ish editor, I was shocked when my attempts to interact with SwisterTwister were met by accusations that I had violated some unknown rule by contacting him: I genuinely thought that I had done something wrong. I have of course overstepped rules, not so often anymore, but long-term editors may forget how Byzantine the rules here are, how long it takes to learn the ropes, and how very intimidating it is to new editors to be told that one is in violation. Unfortunately, Swister is not the only editor on WP who WP who threatens inexperienced editors by falsely accusing them of violating a rule. This sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is deeply WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, and needs to be halted when it occurs. As here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As MelanieN says, "Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a form of bullying behavior, apparently (to this observer) being pursued as part of a deletionist agenda. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, but I've seen similar behavior from other people, and in other directions. As E.M.Gregory says above, this is not uncommon in various situations. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I have personally experienced this behavior, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and it needs to be addressed. The proposal is a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. No user should claim an interaction ban if no such ban exists.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This conduct needs to be addressed and a warning from an admin on behalf of community consensus is appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure how much effect this would have but it can't hurt. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: No one needs to impose an interaction ban from any users from ST. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – This is a balanced warning on behaviour that may look abrasive to some fellow editors. — JFG talk 05:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Diffs presented at start of the thread is convincing enough that this behaviour is problematic and shouldn't continue. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose He's dealing with some other issues off wiki with abuse and such about enwiki so he attempts to back away from editing a bit to get away from the drama... I've look at ALL his contribs starting from account creations, nothing but the common newcomer mistakes we've all made once or twice... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister's not a newcomer. He's been here for 6 years, and should know better. Also, I doubt that you went through all of his 103,023 non-deleted edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:00, 11 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.

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities[edit]

By a pure nose count, there is a slight majority in favor. However, community-imposed sanctions are not a vote, but require a clear and unambiguous consensus. After reading through this discussion, I cannot find that a sufficient consensus exists here to impose a community editing restriction, and after this discussion has already run ten days, it's unlikely that it will change and one will be reached. I would, however, strongly advise SwisterTwister to carefully consider and take on board the feedback presented here. Many editors do clearly see a problem, and that's something well worth considering to avoid having a similar discussion again, perhaps with a different result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 16 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.

According to MelanieN, multiple resolutions may be proposed here. I have tried to write this one as a step beyond what she has proposed above. There should be no conflict supporting one, the other or both proposals (though I assume most editors supporting this proposal would also support Melanie's).

I beleive the behavior described in this thread including accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and ongoing reports of failure to follow WP:BEFORE clearly constitutes a longstanding pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. The reported disruptive behavior is associated with deletion-related activities in WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AFC and WP:PROD. The user has been reluctant to discuss criticism and shown no intent to change behavior. To prevent additional disruptive behavior a topic ban on deletion-related activities is appropriate. My proposal is a 30-day ban on the following activities where the disruption has been reported:

  1. Nominating articles for deletion through WP:AFD or WP:CSD
  2. Proposing articles for deletion using WP:PROD
  3. Declining WP:AFC submissions

I propose that the user be allowed to continue participating in AFD discussions started by other users. I am hopeful that the official warning proposed above will adequately address disruption in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I am leaning toward support of this proposal. It addresses the issues brought up by many people, but it does so modestly. It is limited in scope to the proposing or nomination of articles for deletion, where his record is frankly dismal (less that 60% of his AfD nominations result in deletion), and to declining AFC submissions which is a similar activity. It allows him to continue to comment on AfDs nominated by other people, where his commentary has received some criticism but is not disruptive. It is limited in time to 30 days, which is not punitive but more of an attention-getter and an inducement to improve. Assuming he resumes such nominations after the 30 days, his work could be evaluated; if it is still disruptive, the topic ban could be extended or possibly made permanent. I would also like to see him start a Twinkle log of his CSD and PROD nominations, so that they can be evaluated more systematically, but I don't suppose we can compel him to. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment- Just to remind people, WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed in the past and, though it's considered good advice and strongly encouraged, consensus has been that making it strictly compulsory would cause more problems than it would solve. Wikilawyerish shutdowns of AfDs on obviously hopeless articles, and deliberately trying to infuriate deletion nominators are the big two problems that have been identified previously. Reyk YO! 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think SwisterTwister was actively trying to game the system. I think that because of stress, he misinterpreted our policy on wikihounding to believe he could unilaterally impose interaction bans. Alright, he's been chewed out for that, and there's a separate proposal to back that up with an Official Warning. I've voted to keep a few of the articles he nominated for deletion, and he's never said a negative or rude thing to me ever. In fact, sometimes he sends me a "thanks" for voting. There's been no consensus that his work at AFC or NPP is disruptive, and no new evidence has been provided. Despite popular misconception, WP:BEFORE is neither policy nor guideline. I don't see a good reason to topic ban him from any of these areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
ST does not claim interaction bans or other rudeness for everyone. I encourage you to consider the possibility, based on evidence provided in this thread, that his behavior to others has been inappropriate. And, if you find this to be so, support this proposal to improve this situation for your fellow Wikipedians. An oppose vote means that you do not beleive that ST has been disruptive to the community. An oppose vote is not an appropriate way to indicate that you have not personally been affected by ST's behavior. Also, aside from WP:AGF, the reason for disruptive behavior is not really something we should give a lot of consideration to. Please have a look at the second paragraph of the lead in WP:DISRUPT. This is where I personally believe this is coming from. But, as the policy says, it's not a reason not to address it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to do something about the general atmosphere of incivility at AfD, but, like I said, I think SwisterTwister got stressed out and reacted poorly. My interactions with him are a demonstration that this behavior is out of character. I don't think he'll cause any more trouble. He's an extremist, yes, but he's merely the flip side of the inclusionists who vote to keep nearly everything. I don't think that's especially disruptive, though it can be frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Because SwisterTwister's editing in these areas have indeed been WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, in exactly the ways articulated above by User:Kvng.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as the first of a sequence of escalating remedies, rather than because I think this has much chance of being effective by itself. ST needs to find a way to contribute here that is not just rapid-fire indiscriminate deletion contributions. A month may be long enough to cause that to happen, but without some sort of mentorship I don't hold out a lot of hope for change. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - 30 days isn't enough if this is a real problem. To me the big issue is that this user is said to be making non-administrative closures of deletion debates — which I find appalling. This is not a person I would trust with administrative buttons — way, way, way skewed to the deletionist end of the spectrum. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that only administrators are not allowed to close AfDs if the result is delete. I find it hard to beleive that ST would do a closure unless the result was delete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Kvng: He's actually closed quite a few AFDs (tool) as keep, including this lovely "speedy keep" where he determined that the school's statement on its website that it was accredited was itself sufficient to make the school notable. Rebbing 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support If it causes ST to re-evaluate his behaviour when it expires, good. If not, then as David Eppstein points out, it can be escalated. -- Begoon 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is basically an attempt to win arguments by removing an opponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    That's, ironically, a very good description of ST's behaviour, and would be an excellent "support" rationale in the section above. It doesn't, however, apply to the genuine concerns of many experienced users, expressed over a long period, regarding damaging and disruptive rapid-fire deletion contributions lacking necessary care and the unwillingness to alter this behaviour.-- Begoon 04:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    his attempts to persuade people not to revert him were improper, even tho they had no actual force--this is trying to institutionalize it on the other side DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree. This is a community discussion about appropri