Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938

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

Noticeboard archives


Disruptive editing by formerly blocked ip[edit] is once again making disruptive edits to Rainbow's End (theme park), Sylvia Park, Southmall Manurewa, ANZ Bank New Zealand and many others. His habit is to list street addresses and dates of startups. Inexplicably, he sometimes changes the startup date format which he entered on a previous edit to birth year. He is editing the exact same articles, with the exact same edits, that were edited by,,, at least one of which was previously blocked, so he has a history of using multiple ip's. At Onehunga Branch, he persists multiple times in removing the Onehunga Line template, despite being told that Onehunga Branch is part of that line. I had hoped that reverts by User:Ajf773 and myself would not go unnoticed and he would be blocked by an admin, but unfortunately this has not happened and I must now formally request an indefinite block. Akld guy (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried explaining the issues on a talk page, either an article's or the IP's, preferably without threatening blocks at the same time? IPs are people, too, and I'm somewhat concerned if one editor refers to another as a "pest", particularly when this is basically a content dispute. (As an aside, I don't think the date of 1835 you re-introduced is correct, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page.) It's also rather difficult to argue that adding addresses is automatically disruptive when the template offers a parameter for that purpose. For comparison, Disneyland, the British Museum and the White House all give addresses, too. Even if the IP's edits were found to be disruptive, we do not block IPs indefinitely, particularly not dynamic ones. Huon (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of the IP's edits are worthwhile, and I have tried to retain those that are. The IP does not respond to advice/warnings on his Talk page, and his usual response to a revert which includes an edit summary explaining his mistake is a revert of the revert. Take a look at the history of Onehunga Branch where you will see that for several months, under one Ip address or another, he has removed the same content (the list of railway stations on the Onehunga Line) despite edit summaries that point out that the Branch is a segment of the Line. I'm sorry but my tolerance, and I think that of User:Ajf773 has run out with this pest. As to the wrong date (1835), presumably for ANZ Bank New Zealand, the IP may have replaced it with another date and I restored it in a revert. This is a problem when this IP makes quick changes in succession, some of them good and some of them bad. The good ones become collateral damage. That's my mistake. But, overall, this IP's edits are disruptive, and User:Ajf773 feels the same. This Ip has cottoned onto a winning formula: make some good edits, but overall be disruptive, making it hard to decide what to do with him. And I see that your response seems to be to shoot the messenger. No more advice to try to interact with this pest please, it hasn't worked. A block of one of the IP's that I listed above didn't work. He was back again soon, making exactly the same edits. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Listing physical addresses and postcodes for businesses have been reverted under WP:NOTWHITE. While the rationale might be okay for other geographic features WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion in other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I fully back Akld guy's complaint as I have been actively reverting edits from this user who continues to edit under multiple IPs, most of which have been blocked in the past for similar disruptive editing. Approximately 90% of the content has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia which myself and Akld guy have cited under various points under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and despite continued warnings on Talk sections they continue to disrupt the articles mentioned (as well as several others). Efforts to communicate with this editor have been futile. Until this editor finally gets the message we have no other choice other than to continue serving blocks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that the only response is that this is a content dispute, when clearly the IP has been adding and removing the same content repeatedly over a period of several months. This is really edit warring by the IP against WP policy and consensus. The only solution for me seems to be to stalk the IP and revert everything he does on sight until he leaves Wikipedia for good. This means that his (few) worthwhile edits will be undone. I have no doubt that he will not complain (he never responds to attempts to engage, and hasn't bothered replying here despite being advised on his Talk page of action here). The good thing is that this revert on sight policy will boost my edit count. Akld guy (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't do that. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at Fonterra, because that was the first article they edited. I am not seeing the problem with this edit. The edit summaries in the reversions by Akld guy and Ajf773 are not terribly informative either. I also find no discussion on the articles talk page or the IPs. For an IP to make an edit to a template in their first edit probably indicates that they have edited before. However, I went through the articles history (going bak to the start of the year) and found no more similar edits. Similarly, looking at the articles linked by Akld guy above I see no evidence of vandalism and what I saw wasn't even really disruptive.[1] There are claims that the editor has been blocked before, but I can't find any evidence of that either. There is definitely edit warring, which may be grounds for a block, but contrary to whats said above I can find no evidence of discussion[2] with the IP. In fact the three notices on their talk page consist of a generic welcome template, a final warning and the a note that they are being brought here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Prolific disruptor is back,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Persistent disruptive editing at Onehunga Branch and User talk:, so there may be a case to answer here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (EDIT CONFLICT) First of all, Aircorn has had his differences with me at the very contentious article Bain family murders, where he severely criticized me for challenging the disruptive editor User:Turtletop. As a result of my challenges, Turtletop was proved to be a sock of indefinitely blocked User:Offender9000 and was also indefinitely blocked. So it's not surprising that Aircorn is critical of me here since he didn't seem inclined to eat humble pie and apologize to me. Aircorn is not an unbiased commenter here, and has made a superficial investigation. Please, as asked, look at the history of Onehunga Branch, where the IP has edit warred by deleting the list of stations on the Onehunga Line. This is the same persistent edit warring that was carried out by IP's and It's also the same pattern as the edit warring at Downtown Shopping Centre by him and the same IP's. There's no doubt but that it's the same fellow using different IP's. The pattern is the same, the same articles are targeted, and the content added or deleted is the same. As to no edit summaries by me, well, it became tiresome typing edit summaries repeatedly and it's pointless when the IP takes no notice whatsoever. He hasn't even come here to defend himself. Since it seems no action will be taken here, the only remedy is to revert on sight until he loses interest. Akld guy (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes scan ANI and will comment on topics that interest me. It is what lead me to the Bain article in the first place. You have options beyond reverting every edit on sight. If they are edit warring report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or if you think they are socks of banned users go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you had provided links to previous blocks and reports, plus actual diffs of the disruptive editing and attempted discussion, admins would probably be more willing to take action here. FWIW I do think there is merit in blocking the IP[3] and semi protecting Onehunga Branch if issues persist. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I went straight to a Level 4 (Final Warning) vandalism template on due to previous warnings at different levels on other IPs as User:Akld guy has specified a few times already. The editor knows what they are doing and continue making disruptive and non-constructive edits under the guise of a different IP where their previous contributions history is not immediately available (the problem of allowing non registered users to make edits). Between the two of us, we have been reverting content where either of us see it being necessary (which is most of the time) and it's beyond me why they desire to continually disrupt these articles with such futility. Ajf773 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like nothing will get done here. Look at all the reverts the IP has caused, and then ask yourselves "When Wikipedia sends out its annual request for donations to pay for its servers, do you really want to make a donation that pays for the bandwidth caused by all those reverts and edit summaries and futile ANI complaints?" Akld guy (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: the IP was blocked for 31 hours at 15:09 on 8 November by an admin who apparently wasn't aware of the appeal here. Someone had some sense. Akld guy (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparent sourcing flaw in featured article ignored, possible retributive action instead[edit]

Pointed out a long-standing sourcing flaw at the top of a featured psychiatric article - no response whatsoever for weeks. Well except coincidentally within days a (misinformed) attack on an old contribution of mine on another psychiatric article.

What to do about that sort of thing? Details upon request. Eversync (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

When you edit the page, the edit notice clearly said "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.". That's a request for details. This page is only for specific incidents, not for general enquiries about "that sort of thing". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I know that really, but then where might I get any info or reassurance about how that sort of thing (likely involving multiple linked editors) might be dealt with, before risking getting mired in the details? Eversync (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to have a general chat, use the village pump. If you think this is a dispute, use dispute resolution (which also requires specifics). But really, if you have a disagreement with other users, you have to discuss that with them. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks I'll try the village pump first. It's not so much a disagreement as nothing's actually been explicitly disagreed with in the end. Eversync (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@EverSince: WP:SOFIXIT might be of use, too. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree but there comes a point where long-term lack of collaborative editing (due to systemic bias or failure to assume good faith) becomes the bigger sticking point for continued involvement in the encyclopedia. Eversync (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP socking[edit]

(non-admin closure) Moved to WP:SPI. Blackmane (talk) 21:07, 10 November 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 ordeal started when I was making some clean-up edits to Knower (band), because I felt that there was some clutter on the infobox at the top, and in the categories on the bottom. [4] [5] However, has been disruptively reverting my cleanup efforts, claiming that I am a "conflict of interest." [6] When I traced the IP address, I have confirmed that this user is likely an IP sock of the indefinitely blocked user Boaxy and/or Phrasia (or one of his meat editors), which were previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts, making personal attacks against other users, and disruptive tendentious editing. I have confirmed that Boaxy was the most-recent sock of Phrasia, and was the one who created the article in question. It is very likely that this user has ownership issues with the article. I warned the user to cease this conduct and abide by the terms of their indefinite block, but they have thus far refused.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Chris

Isn't this something for WP:Sockpuppet investigations to handle? Parsley Man (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Very well, then. I shall take the matter to there.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Chris

Sounds like this report is due a closing. Anyone? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) (Now THIS... I did.) 18:00, 9 November 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 check these changes in project ratings?[edit]

IP has been rating correctly except for two. Strange hobby but helpful. -- Dane2007 talk 08:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
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.

2600:1002:B120:B553:3CE2:5ECD:263F:6572 (talk · contribs) has been doing nothing but change project ratings. I reverted one that seemed dubious and then noticed that was all the IP had been doing. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked about a third of them and they seemed correct. What an odd hobby for an IP, though. Does anyone know or recognize this person, who geolocates to Wilmington, Delaware? Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Doug Weller: I now checked the rest of them. I think you caught one of the only two bad ones, [7]; I caught this other bad one [8]. The rest as of this writing are OK. You might want to template their TP about the two bad ones that have been reverted. I don't use twinkly things so I'm not good at that. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 7 November 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.


In case anyone hadn't noticed, Euryalus blocked Ellomate indefinitely three days ago. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 10 November 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.

Whoever User:Ellomate is, he:

Thanking you in advance for your assistance, Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Well he has a little over 900 edits on a diverse range of articles so I doubt this is a case of NOTHERE. And while I am not a fan of the N word in any of its various iterations, its use among the younger generation as an informal way of greeting male friends is pretty well known. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that absent some other evidence of nefarious activity, this may be a minor overreaction.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that condemning Ellomate's overall record isn't justified by anything posted yet, the edits Herostratus points to are inappropriate. I invite Ellomate to explain himself, or better still, to promise to cut it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. A look at some of his edit summaries has also shown a tendency to use salty language. I'm not a prude but one should really reserve expletives for those moments in life when nothing else will quite do. Polite people understand this. But as of right now I'm not seeing anything that rises above questionable taste in expressing oneself. A word of caution about the use of language that some may find objectionable is probably in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It sometimes goes beyond edit summaries. This edit request is pretty salty too. Then there is this self-described prank. It is almost as if two different people are editing. On the whole I would say the contributions are constructive, especially at AfD. Karst (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I changed the heading to something neutral. Jehochman Talk 22:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jenochman: I've never understood why people do that. It breaks the links in all edit summaries up to that point (which are unchangeable) and alters the context in which the OP meant his/her words to be read (essentially amounting to a violation of WP:TPO). Sure, in some cases there are grievously offensive section titles that should be changed for various reasons, but "Bad Editor of the Day" is not that, and is actually a pretty fair assessment of what this editor turned out to be, and thanks to your edit I didn't even know that that was what Herostratus was trying to call him. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The way around that is the anchor template, which I've added. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for giving me this notice. Ellomate (questions? talk/consult my lawyer) 23:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I like what Ad Orientem said. I also agree with what Brad said. Herostratus is wrong though. Overall I say continue the course. Ellomate (questions? talk/consult my lawyer) 23:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't appreciate you doing that. It's not a neutral situation. This is a problem. Leaving aside that it is just incredibly nasty to leave a turd on the page of an editor who retired in 2012, you can't call people nigga here and you don't get a pass for that for X edits. Look, I'm used to getting abuse in the course of give-and-take here. This is different, accusing my own personal self of being a racist and hating black people. This is insupportable.
This is not mere vulgar abuse. This is not calling someone a moron in the course of a heated discussion. This is different. This is a deliberate attempt to hurt people's feelings and sow discord and hatred. This is bad mojo.
Maybe the person is having a bad day or whatever. Maybe he should just get a stern talking to and probation. I'll leave that your-all's professional judgement. He deleted my message, so I've fouled out here. Ball is in your court. I would say "Well, it's okay to throw around 'nigger' and whatever here so we don't need to do anything" is probably not a functional result, is not go for this project, and it won't stand. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I think we should take seriously the question of whether this user is behaving appropriately and should not at least be warned and told to clean up their act. I read through the above and the "over 900 edits" didn't quite square with posting a random message on the talk page of a user who hasn't edited in four years: it turns out Ellomate also has barely edited in that time, as most of his edits date from 2007. Only editing sporadically is not in itself a violation, but it's not like this user is a well-respected member of the community who has been contributing a significant amount of content to the point where the occasional slip in civility can be overlooked. Looking over just a few edit summaries brought up some interesting points:
    • [9] He vandalized an article (admitting that you are playing a "prank" in your edit summary does not negate the fact that pranks are inappropriate).
    • [10] He made an extreme and somewhat offensive theological claim that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.
    • Other than the above vandalism, ever single edit this user has made since reemerging this year (with some other minor exceptions like this bizarre edit) has been related to the Trump presidential campaignDonald Trump, the 2016 U.S. presidential race, or Republican politics.
Even if it could not necessarily be said back in December 2007 (the last time they were ectively editing on anything like a regular basis) that they were NOTHERE, perhaps we should question whether he is NOLONGERHERE. And as the "Catholics aren't Christians" point makes clear, it's not like he was free of blemish even back then.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a minor side-note, but Ellomate's explicitly stating that he thinks Roman Catholics are not Christians is only a slightly more explicit version of something that's actually extremely common in English Wikipedia discussion of Christianity- and Bible-related topics. Using the word "Christians" to refer specifically to Christians who happen to hold a certain theological view that is a minority view in Christianity, such as biblical inerrancy, implicitly states that one believes those who don't hold this view are not Christians. This is one example that sticks in my mind, but this is essentially the same -- by no objective definition of "Christianity" were Marcionites not Christians. This phenomenon is something Wikipedians should be writing about (as I suggested here), but AFAIAC Wikipedians who actually engage in arguments about whether non-inerrantist Christians are "real Christians" on Wikipedia and edit the mainspace with this agenda should probably be TBANned at least. I bring this up here because I think Ellomate was expressing this view when he contrasted Roman Catholics with Christians. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Am surprised at the mild reactions to the edits listed in this thread. Ellomate, please stop causing disruption by a) using offensive language, b) calling other editors racist, and c) making prank edits. Continuing to do any of these will lead to your account being blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't much care if this edit was reverted a few seconds later; if anyone sees Ellomate do anything like this again, let me know and I'll block the little shit indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Yikes. This seems to be a longer-term problem than the OP suggested. I'm now leaning in favor of indeffing, frankly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not getting it re that edit - what is its significance beyond being minor vandalism? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Triple parentheses Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Well, that's particularly offensive. Whatever Ellomate was here for in previous years, on balance their current edits make clear they are not interested in building the encyclopedia. Blocked indefinitely, but will leave this thread open in case anyone disagrees or has other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) That is something I did not know. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am now inclined to treat this much more seriously. There is no rule that says bigots can't edit here, but I will be dipped if they will be allowed to bring their gutter level opinions onto the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Level 4 Warning against inappropriate editing broadly construed, with the understanding that any further nonsense of this sort will result in an indef block no matter how far in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are too many problems/questions with this user. Ellomate needs to come here and answer some questions. Absent that, indef and move on. I'm seeing very little argument for not blocking at this point. And we need to find out the connection with STATicVapor. (See below.) I've dropped an ANI notice on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This also is odd. I've never seen anything like that. It must signify an alternate account maybe? Which again, while not necessarily strictly forbidden, for this person is another bad sign... if it's not an alternate account, I'd have to wonder what the deal is... we'd have to ask User:STATicVapor I guess (we can't assume he knows about this), but STATicVapor hasn't edited since early 2015. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, this whole incident provides further support for my (apparently unpopular) theory that fascism and antisemitism are on a rise on English Wikipedia. A user is brought to ANI for disruptive grave-dancing and some other users come to his defense by taking AGF a bit too far, then shortly afterward it turns out he was inserting neo-Nazi dog-whistles into the mainspace. This is pretty much the exact same thing as happened with Zaostao and KAvin last month. I have some ideas as to why it's suddenly bubbling up right now, and while I don't want to elaborate the hints are there in Ellomate's recent edit history. I'm not sure what we can do to tackle it, but it seems increasingly clear that it's there, and will keep getting worse for at least the next day or so. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - Judging by the evidence presented, I think it's clear this user is being intentionally disruptive and an indef block is definitely in order. Parsley Man (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Block and removal of talk page access based on the current unblock request. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The user's page says "smoke weed erryday" [sic] which probably explains some things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That would depend on whether he considered this edit to be pro- or anti-Trump. I personally think Ellomate holds to some form of Christian fundamentalism (see above), which, if he is American, means he probably votes Republican and supports Trump, which in turn means that the edit was almost certainly not meant to be taken as anti-Trump, and that means that Ellomate opposes recreational marijuana. That's a lot of "if"s, but I think it holds up. I think their userpage is just trolling, and was almost certainly just meant as a reference to the Dr. Dre single The Next Episode. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Indef Block, based on the triple parenthes issue. No one who actually does that is *ever* going to use it as a joke. Its knowledge that is only known by three groups - racists, their targets, and on wikipedia the people who remove it. Since it is unlikely he is the second or third group (I like to think no real Jew would tag another Jew that way) it is clear it was done as a racist attack on Sanders. And I have zero tolerance for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note This disruptive edit also looks like Ellomate, given that his "appeal" on his talk page also complained about how he was blocked without warning, and the opening of a random AN thread and the language both look like more of the same trolling that has already pointed out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This edit looks typical of the ref desk neo-Nazi troll, a banned user. It targets the same admins who often revert and block that troll. Whether the guy behind that IP is technically the same guy that's behind Ellomate, at heart they're the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that this was probably the account of some silly kid with too much weed and some unorthodox political views. But the triple parenthesis thing pushes the account from "good faith" into "trolling". Support the indef block. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Their reasoning that an extension can cause the triple parenthesis isn't wrong. See this, however, it's an extra nail in the coffin because only those who know what it's for would deliberately use it. Blackmane (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Shouldn't we block editors who admit to editing in browsers with that kind of extension installed? I too posted that I didn't doubt that such an extension existed, and apparently one on the other side of the political spectrum that automatically replaces Đóň Thrumf's name with "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" is also a thing, and even automatically alters other users' talk page comments. These extensions seem extremely dangerous from a BLP point of view even if nothing else. I am not a fan of ... well, most people on all sides of the US political spectrum at the moment, but I'm really not comfortable with my signed talk-comments being altered to read like explicit propaganda. (I also haven't been a Harry Potter fan since the fourth book, but that's beside the point.) Do you know if this has been brought up before? Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:39, 10 November 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.


IP seems to have started discussing and stopped editing in a manner that is uncollaborative. -- Dane2007 talk 08:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
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 IP's behavior needs review. They are adding controversial additions to articles, and reverting with uncollaborative edit summaries: [11] [12][13][14][15][16]

I think a longer term block is needed. I would do it myself, but I reverted one of the additions. --Rschen7754 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they have started discussing, but I think further monitoring is needed since this is disruptive behavior across several subject areas. --Rschen7754 08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone should definitely advise the IP on WP:AGF. Parsley Man (talk) 20:19, 8 November 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.

Malleus Maleficarum disruption by Vami IV[edit]

This is a content issue and belongs on a different noticeboard. If it were a behavioural issue, it's because Asterixf2 turned it into one - a childish fiasco - Ils sont fous, ces editeurs! Boomerang! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 11 November 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'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV (at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).

In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body[17], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)

He raised this issue on articles' talk page [18], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [19], [20] (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA [21] and instructed here [22] (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).

The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: [23]. He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:

  1. "that is misogynistic" into "that is today considered to be extremely misogynistic"
  2. he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.

I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.

PS. I kindly ask some admin to revert his edit completely (I am following 1RR). --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:
As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.
Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.
P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
P.P.S. When I wrote "I too have cited sources," I was talking about my NPOV violation claim and the 4 or so sources I used there. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.
Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Wikipedia shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. [24] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [25]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [26] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [27]. I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. Section Reception was today restored by another user. However, inappropriate edits lead to this kind of confusion (Removal of It was a bestseller, second only to Bible in terms of sales for almost 200 years statement). --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary [28]. Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it.
(2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What kind of POV? Why it is a POV section? I don't understand. Please explain. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Your POV that Mackay is right and the historians I've cited are wrong. That's your opinion (and Mackay's opinion), it's not the undisputed truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Please write precisely what makes it POV, because I have not used Mackay as a reference in this section. here is a link to the section (I could, he is an excellent source, best in the article. I used him in one note in this section but all text is supported by other references and this is just an additional note; for this section my primary source was Broedel - second best modern secondary source in the article out of such 2 :) ) --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"POV" means a specific point of view rather than covering both sides or presenting a neutral version. You keep pushing Mackay's view as absolute truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate for me to distort any of the 2 best secondary sources to accommodate your "approach". It would be also highly scandalous to disregard them. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently suggested that Asterixf2 and Ryn78 need to go straight to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and thrash their differences out, and I agree with Ian's comment that there's a featured article to be got out of this if only the two of you could get along. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Emojione 1F494.svg Clarification
I'd like to make clear what is going on to avoid misunderstanding (partially, because there is more nonsense going on like Jenny Gibbons as a source). Not only Ryn78 has hidden section Reception but he is also civil pov pushing since 2013 (now Adamfinmo who thanked him for hiding this section joined him, Adamfinmo repeatedly removes (reverts) my comments in article's talk page. Last time he reverted imprecisely, I commented on the partially left content and he later removed this portion what makes a thread look messy and nonsensical, my new comment with suggestion about article was stricken-through by him, I'm following 1RR there)

Ryn78 argues that Sprenger isn't the co-author. However:
(1) ALL secondary sources in the article disagree with him and say Sprenger is co-author (Broedel, Mackay, Summers), Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention that Sprenger could not be an author. (article's bibliography)
(2) His claim that Sprenger is not a co-author is supported by citations from 7-page PDF from nowhere, not dated and which looks like a draft and also was discussed in RS noticeboard here. Btw, he floods article with out-of-context cherry-pick statements from this source giving them undue weight.
(3) Here is a version with fixed lead section (also with inappropriate content by Ryn78 highlighted, it may be discussed but with WP:DUE and other sources).
(4)I have provided 6 citations in this version for joint authorship including ALL secondary sources (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). This is the same version as in point 3 above. I have included in the lead section the statement about authorship controversy as sympathetic towards his perspective as I could.
(4) Ritchie333, do you think WP:DRN is going to help in this case? I have doubts about priorities and WP:AGF is very difficult in this case. CC: @TParis and Softlavender:
--Asterixf2 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear here I'm not on RYN78's team or anything or the sort, I'm simply trying to get you to participate in a collaborative process. Instead you continue to push your version without gaining consensus. That's why you are on a 1RR right. As for deleting your comments, article talk space is not for discussing editors or simply posting links with out comment. Off topic posts and personal attacks can be summarily removed from talk pages. I did make an imperfect deletion, that you left when you reinserted your off topic link post. It is all fixed now. Can we proceed with building a good article on the talk page? --Adam in MO Talk 19:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2: You're repeating a whole slew of misrepresentations that I've already debunked. Just to make this brief since this isn't the place for this type of content dispute: No, "all secondary sources" in the article do not support your view that Sprenger was a co-author. No, there's nothing wrong with the Gibbons article (from an academic journal). The fact that you submitted that source and the Behringer article to Wikipedia:Realiable Sources doesn't mean you gained consensus that these are invalid, in fact you met with a lot of opposition on both points. The other points have also been covered ad nauseam on the article talk page, which is where this type of thing needs to be handled. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal What if Vami V were on a 1RR to match Asterixf2's?--v/r - TP 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

This thread keeps popping up on my watchlist, mainly because the OP has made 68+ edits [29] to it and to the ANI thread he opened three days previously about the same article:


I agree with admin Ritchie333 that this is a content dispute however one looks at it (and that is also clear from the discussion on this thread), and that Dispute Resolution needs to be applied. Could we please staunch the time-waste and close this (as I said, there have been two ANI threads on this article within three days)? First of all, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and second of all, we don't want to encourage the OP to keep filing on ANI every time he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA. So could someone please close this as a content dispute, unsuitable for ANI? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out that this request for closure was made by an involved editor. he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA I am not an SPA. To call me an SPA because I am currently developing this article and focusing on it is abusive and discrediting. 99% of new content in this article was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
More than 80% of your article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have intensified my efforts last month and developed this article (what can be seen on month counts). Previously, I have just tagged various statements in this article. Activity on talk page is due to civil pov pushing by Ryn78. As I understand, I am supposed to discuss with him the points on which we disagree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: And he's still arguing points of content (this time with a gigantic image): [30]. Will someone please explain to Asterixf2 how the various options of WP:DR actually work? And explain to him that ANI is not the place to bring or resolve content issues? And/or simply close this thread so the issues can go to their proper venue? Asterixf2 is a new user, has been on Wikipedia only 3 months, has made only 1,500 edits, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum: [31]. Someone needs to shut this endless fruitless ANI thread down so that DR can be implemented. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I am here much longer than 3 months, you would need to multiply it. Please avoid misleading information. Of course there was a significant number of edits to Malleus because I got interested in this topic but to some extent this number is due to the dispute. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
To address a point above, DRN is better than ANI because much of the quarrelling has been over content and sources. Over here, we look at conduct and behaviour, while over there it's focused on the merits of your work on MM. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to highlight the difficulties, but as nothing can be done I generally agree with you and support the closure. However, I would keep it at least for a few days more so that everybody has a chance to make last comments and be fully aware of the issues discussed here without misunderstandings. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited Asterixf2 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue[edit]

This topic was split off from #Request for closure, above. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, again, this is not true. For example, RS noticeboard has been used two times [32], [33] but the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT as far as substantial arguments are concerned. Furthermore, hiding section Reception in html comments is especially nasty and it is absolutely unsubstantiated (see whatpov above and clarification above) that is why I think this is a behavioral issue. Because of this and other aspects, in my opinion this is a behavioral issue. This is disruptive editing due to persistent failure or refusal to "get the point". Please see WP:RUNAWAY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. PS. In the most recent book Mackay explains authorship in an excellent way. Here is my proposed content about it: [34] (theories to the contrary should be described but with proper sources and due weight) --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a behavioral issue at the page and it is you, Asterixf2. How many people have to tell you to try and resolve this dispute before you realize that you are the problem. There have been, at least, five editors who have tried to engage you collaboratively. I'd suggest you drop the stick, before consensus moves toward further topic restriction for you. --Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do try (this proposal was made before your comment) and will accept reasonable behavior and respond to substantial arguments. I won't give any weight to other arguments even if 4 to 1. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That "proposal" is rather hilarious, if Asterixf2 is serious about it. Either way that "proposal" along with their admission that they aren't here to collaborate with other editors shows that they are clearly a spa and they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that Asterixf2 be indefinitely topic banned from this article across all name spaces.--Adam in MO Talk 20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
What you don't like about it so that you apparently ridicule it? In my comment above, I was referring to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. PS. Your comment doesn't look very impartial here (or consensus building). --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I pointed out that you have not explained to me what it is that you perceive to be wrong so that I can learn sth perhaps. Also, instead of replying to my comment in the way you did, you could have let me know how to change a proposal so that it suits your taste better on my talk page. Unless you didn't want me to change it. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I did tell you how to change it. Put your proposed lead on the talk page, with sources and we will discuss it.--Adam in MO Talk 22:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
But I have 2 proposals, if he doesn't agree to those conditions than I prefer the version without the 'most likely' words. If he agrees to those conditions I prefer to insert 'most likely'. Overall result is important. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
How many times would you like me to repeat it? Copy and paste your proposed changes to the talk page, with sources, and we will discuss it. That is how consensus is reached.--Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I will be happy to do it later, because I need to do sth offline now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thumb down icon.svg
Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) I have made twice a meta-comment that you are an involved editor in this article. Please do not repeatedly remove it like here, here and don't format my comments like here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Asterixf2, for heavens sakes stop labeling people's comments here as "involved". That is entirely inappropriate. I've removed your attempted disparagement of this "Request for closure" thread with the same sort of tag (I have made exactly three substantive edits to the Malleus Maleficarum article, and all three were maintenance edits: removal of a clearly non-substantiating [and irrelevant to what it was appended to] footnote [35], removal of an empty section [36], and a grammar correction [37]). If you continue to repost these labels on any editor here, I will request a boomerang on you for opening this content-dispute thread (your second ANI filing about this article in three days) and endlessly maintaining it despite repeated guidance to use WP:DR instead of wasting time on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thumb down icon.svg
    In my opinion your edits weren't pure maintenance. You restored and removed content in the article and discussed those changes on the talk page. You modified article structure by adding and removing sections. But nonetheless, I don't understand why would you insist on removing this meta-comment that you are an involved editor (you were not protesting before to remove, just now after another editor that is involved removed his.) Furthermore, you were providing misleading and incorrect information in this discussion repeatedly. Asterixf2 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal[edit]

Durova in this thread wrote This article [Malleus Maleficarum] has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person. [...] Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. (Durova is inactive) Ryn78 constantly edits Joan of Arc and related articles. His contributions. One of the first Ryn78's edits are to Joan of Arc article. He edits this article regularly since then that is since 6 years. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, the appropriate venue is WP:SPI, not here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
You are an involved editor. I have put it here for additional consideration. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Just want to point out that making sockpuppet allegations against another editor without concrete evidence is considered a personal attack. I've said it before, either put up evidence of your allegations or shut up. And no, your hand wavey, nebulous so-called "evidence" is not sufficient. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal[edit]

Asterixf2 has refused to listen to the suggestions of multiple experienced editors, including admins, to take his issues regarding Malleus Maleficarum to one of the WP:DR processes rather than to continue to argue points of content here on ANI. He has never even attempted to utilize WP:DR, and has failed to gain a consensus that the issues on the article are solely behavioral (every content issue involves behavior until it is properly addressed via WP:DR) or that it cannot be resolved by WP:DR. There is no consensus on this thread that Vami IV or Ryn78 is in the wrong, and this thread is therefore an extensive echo chamber of Asterixf2 arguing points of content, usually with Ryn78. Moreover, Asterixf2 started another ANI thread on Malleus Maleficarum three days before he opened this one [38] (which did not turn out well, but he did not learn his lesson). He has made 130+ edits on the subject of Malleus Maleficarum on ANI [39]. More than 60% of his entire edit history involves Malleus Maleficarum, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. Moreover, he repeatedly utilizes giant colored images and giant colored type to draw attention to his points and to attempt to incriminate others (devices he also utilizes on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum).

Therefore, I propose one or more of the following to put at least a temporary stop the the time-waste and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior:

  • A temporary topic ban on Malleus Maleficarum, broadly construed, to last at least three to six months.
  • Closure of this thread and a topic ban on posting on ANI or AN about Malleus Maleficarum.
  • A WP:0RR restriction on Malleus Maleficarum (he is apparently already under a 1RR restriction).
  • A restriction to three replies per thread on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum, unless it is a WP:DR thread.
  • A ban on the utilization of images, colors, type-sizes, edit-lines, and other such enhancements, in discussions (this would also include tagging of others' posts or labeling them as "involved", etc).
  • A ban on further replies to this thread.
  • Any other solution (block?) that others wish to propose.
-- Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • First, Softlavender is an involved edtior. Second, I'd like to point out that user Softlavender has a record of repeatedly providing incorrect and misleading information in this discussion. In my opinion, her new threads here obfuscate substantial discussion and derail this whole thread. She has already created a Request for closure and this is another one.

    Also, in the subsection #Request for closure that she previously started I have answered to the arguments she repeats here. In particular, she is again providing blatantly false information that WP:DR was not used despite being warned previously that this is an incorrect statement. She said previously (above) WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender and to this statement I have replied in subsection #This is a behavioral issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I concurred with all of SL's proposal. I have attempted to engage Asterixf2 multiple times, only to run into the same idht attitude. They routinely edit their posts ex post facto without re-time stamping or otherwise declaring so. They also have a tendency to misuse talk pages to pontificate on other editors. This editor has already stated that they will not abide by the opinions of other editors. Enough is enough. --Adam in MO Talk 13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    First, Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) is an involved edtior. Second, he was using vulgar slang in discussion with me and repeatedly modified and removed my comments (he knows I follow 1RR) Including such unnecessary edits like this one. For example, in article's talk page I have pointed out that I had suggested changes but they were reverted by Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) and he responded by removing my comment.
    Furthermore, immediately after Adamfinmo posted this "support" comment, IP user has blatantly modified critical information (as I see it) in my comments in this post to ANI. The same IP user also fixed formatting for Adamfinmo's "support" comment above here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    First, this is about you and not me. You should address your critics. Second, I shouldn't have reverted that comment. I was wrong and it should be restored. Third, that is my IP for my work computer. I have declared so on the talk page. Forth, no shit, I'm involved. I have declared it several times. So how about you take this declaration that I'm definitely involved and stop tagging my comments? The whole world knows I'm involved. This fact does not invalidate anything I have said this far. --Adam in MO Talk 15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    Please disengage, in my opinion you are adding fuel to the fire and you have not demonstrated to be impartial. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    First rule of holes; when you find yourself in one Stop digging! You're obnoxious tagging of involved editors posts as "... is an involved editor" is unnecessary. Yes we're all aware, involved parties tend to be the most interested. Could you also stop with the images, random highlighting of words, use of random bold and underlining for emphasis. It just makes it that much harder to read. Register my vote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Close; Just close the thread with no action and a note that Asterix either take this to the article talk page or WP:DRN before they get hit with PBAN or other. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support This thread is almost completely illegible, and it's pretty obvious whose fault that is. I don't think closing with no action would be a good idea -- whatever Asterix thinks he's doing with this bizarre comment style, it doesn't look like he's willing to stop. It also seems like WP:CIR is a serious issue with this user -- see for instance how he refers to both Softlavender and Adamfinmo as "involved users" despite the former not having touched either the Malleus Maleficarum article or its talk page until after this thread opened, and the latter having made only one (obviously good) revert on the talk page before the thread opened. I'm guessing now he will call me an involved user because I edited the page once in 2005? Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if she got involved before or after this thread was opened. The nature of edits matter. As far as stopping is concerned, obviously I won't edit this thread if will be closed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all or any of my proposals, as nominator. As Adam and Hijiri state above, there's clearly an IDHT and CIR issue with this editor, and removing him from the battlefield would probably cause him to learn how to properly edit, collaborate, discuss, and reach consensus and/or dispute resolution. (Cue him yet again tagging me a so-called "involved editor" even though I have only made three maintenance edits to the article, and those only after seeing the endless discussions of the article here on ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    • This will teach me nothing and your proposal contains blatantly false information that I have not utilized WP:DR. You have not corrected this information. Was this proposal made in bad faith or are you going to correct it? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please click WP:DR, WP:DRR, and WP:DRN. Posts on WP:RSN are not going to resolve, and clearly haven't resolved, the various content disputes on the article (and frankly, even though that and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution). You need to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Ritchie has repeatedly suggested WP:DRN for this article, and since he has looked into the matter I would probably take his suggestion, but any of those four options could work. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note For the sake of context it is important to note that Softlavender is apparently replying to Asterixf2's comment as it existed before they changed it ex post facto.--Adam in MO Talk 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I see she replied 20 minutes after I have corrected "WP:RS" into "WP:DR" [40]. I had changed it before anybody have replied. Thank you for your very, very useful note. PS. policy says that noticeboards are dispute resolution. Her post still contains incorrect information. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Adamfinmo: No, I replied after Asterixf2 had made the change. I replied to the form of the post as it exists now, not to the previous version. To reiterate my point, which apparently he still doesn't get, even though RSN (which filings he has linked to far above) and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution. He needs to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Thank you for your suggestions. Nonetheless, given long discussions on talk page with Ryn78 and his refusal to split issues into dedicated threads, I find your comment unreasonable. Also I don't agree with your opinion about specialized noticeboards because it contradicts policy. I don't say that you are wrong with your suggestions of other DR measures. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved to User talk:Softlavender#Dispute resolution (permalink): discussion about what is and what is not DR was moved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have stricken the above because the discussion has not been moved. Discussions cannot be moved without the consent of the editors involved, particularly not ANI discussions, particularly not to user talk pages. And Asterixf2 still does not know what WP:DR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment summary of my position so far is in the first comment of This is a behavioral issue subsection (including clarification and whatpov). Also I have made a note in #For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal above. Hidden section Reception is here. Lead section with 6 citations for coauthorship from my proposal is here: Lead section. This lead section contains citations with quotes for authorship from ALL secondary sources in the article (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). His two highly questionable sources are discussed here and here (both with fierce opposition from user GBRV and without attention from Ryn78) PS. There are going to be further developments in this crisis. I suggest to leave this thread open. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I gotta give it to you. You are consistent. You said you would ignore consensus "even if it is 4 on1". You are true to your word. I implore you, please back down and, at least try to participate in discussion on the talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about ignoring consensus but about weight of arguments. Here is the diff. I am going to participate in the discussion on talk page as I did so far. I will insert there the lead section as you asked previously. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Adamfinmo I have copied lead section to the talk page as you asked me to previously - permalink. I have doubts if this is an appropriate approach because proposals should be made in the article probably. Nonetheless, as you asked. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: please remember that with your last revert you discarded my 6,000-long addition. This is just a remainder, not a complaint. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note2: Mackay, Summers and Broedel say there are 2 authors. For example, Broedel consistently uses the phrase of the kind "Institoris and Sprenger do xyz in their book". I am not going to distort those sources. Mackay's position and his explanation is here. In fact, I am on the edge of withdrawing from the idea that "and most likely" should be used in this section. ALL secondary sources adopt a view that HE IS a coauthor. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note3: Also, if he acknowledged that his sources are inappropriate we could constructively think about some other sources to represent Behringer's views. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Part of the reason you are up for an article ban is that you don't seem to understand that content discussions belong on article talk pages, not here.--Adam in MO Talk 23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Malleus Maleficarum § Notes from ANI: partial move related to 3 notes above in response to a comment by Adamfinmo. Asterixf2 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
However, I guess discussions of gross and obvious violations of content policies are appropriate here WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I am open to your suggestions on my talk page if you would like to clarify this aspect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
There was an enormous amount of stuff here today. Since the admins replying here are voting to close this thread, I'm just going to say that I agree; and any other issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There were no votes by admins in this boomerang. Please avoid constant plausible misinformation. I don't have a conclusive opinion about closing or not but only because I don't think I have enough knowledge about conduct to have strong opinions in this case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
While you're correct that no admins have voted on this proposal, this; please avoid constant plausible misinformation was unnecessary. There appears to be no intent in Ryn78's comment to spread misinformation. Many non-regulars who come to the administrator's noticeboards assume that administrator's are the ones commenting on them - barring of course the involved parties themselves - for likely obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please note that this statement doesn't say anything about intentions. I simply point out that I consider what he says to constitute misinformation that in my view may appear to be plausible to some observers. I have not used it initially but now I consider the case related to the article Malleus Maleficarum to be severe. I feel the need to use it in some circumstances. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 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 deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021[edit]

Now at day 10 and still dragging on, there is a clear consensus for a block. In view of this log which does not inspire confidence that there will be an immediate change in behaviour, and considering that the patience and good will of admins such as Boing! said Zebedee and other admins and users here has been tested to the limit, and as DGG suggests, a block is more easily enforceable than a complex topic ban, I am blocking Light2021 for 1 month after which further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 11 November 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.

In April of 2016, User:Light2021 was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedee accepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:

  1. many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
  2. sending an article back to Afd less than a month after it had survived AfD with a "no consensus" !vote
  3. attempting to speedy an article that had survived one of his AfD nominations
  4. blatant misuse of the WP:HOAX template ([41], [42], [43]), and
  5. the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.

I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Wikipedia editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed[44] suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Wikipedia's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step. Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))
[out of sequence]…but cautiously oppose topic ban. After a couple days of venting Light2021 has promised again to try to be more careful, heed advice, and get along with other editors. I'm convinced that the locus of the problem is not so much what they nominate for deletion but how they have dealt with the deletion discussion. As long as they try, and we all keep a positive spirit, that's fixable. I do believe every editor deserves a second chance, third chance, and hundredth chance, as long as they are trying, listening, and not disrupting things. I do think there needs to be some process involving mentorship, probations, escalating blocks, a warning, I'm not sure how that would be implemented. That's why you all are admins and I'm not :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Wikipedia Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to listen to non-administrative editors here or not? It seems like you are saying that you will not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Their nominations appear to me good-faith and they've been remarkably good IMO at finding highly deletion-worthy articles - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, there are nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13(talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • My Version/Story Wikipedia clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Wikipedia article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
  • I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Wikipedia Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
  • As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Wikipedia as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
  • Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Wikipedia. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.
    • If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.

Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010Talk who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (Davey's broad version), after looking at a couple of AfDs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Seek Advise and neutral opinion on this matter Thanks. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman , Lemongirl942 Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and it's not just AFD, there are MFD's as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I was leaning towards Clpo13 comment about trying to guide Light2021, but I now see this has been tried and the user has refused the help, TB is the next option IMO. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose tban for now - per my comments on the user's talkpage, as little coercion as possible should be applied. I think the editor may be amenable to the solutions 1-4 proposed by Safehaven86. - Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Wikipedia, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Wikipedia as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination) Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: