Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and this discussion is another example.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: This thread appears to be disappearing into irrelevance, so let me revive it. I have seen Light2021 nominate a great deal of CSDs, some of which don't meet the criteria, and a lot of AfDs for not particularly significant companies. While many of the AfDs appear to close as desired, some don't, and a lot of the debates see a three-way Mexican standoff between Light2021, Cunard and SwisterTwister in the discussion. Light2021's standard of English is not great, and he does seem to be a "one trick pony" on a mission to delete all the articles on Wikipedia he doesn't like. I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion, S Marshall (talk · contribs).

I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. – Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), I have posted my observations of Light2021's actions below.

The close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 says, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous blocks

1. In April 2016, Light2021 was blocked multiple times by Randykitty (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalism, and abusing multiple accounts.
2. Light2021 was blocked for one month in November 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021.
3. Light2021 was most recently blocked for two months by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2017 for "disruptive behavior" and "WP:CIR issues".

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

1. Against Timtempleton (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote on 3 July 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi: "Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none."

   Timtempleton replied: "I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor. It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations."

2. Against SL93 (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoneMinder, "You must be joking about such sources". SL93 responded, "Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative?"
3. Against SoWhy (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote:

   Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

   Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks!

4. Regarding Light2021's hostility against my posts, this has happened multiple times in addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) and casting aspersions against me was a concern raised in November 2016 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021. I generally avoid replying to Light2021's comments to me at AfDs because of the hostility.

Canvassing

Kudpung (talk · contribs) warned Light2021 not to canvass on 20 January 2017:

Hi, you have been warned about not respecting policies and you have also been blocked several times. You will not get your own way by canvassing. Please note that any further abuse of editing privileges may result in an extended block, and without the necessity of a discussion at ANI.

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

1. 37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company). Light2021 did not understand why the canvassing was wrong after this discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) on his talk page.

   He also canvassed here, pinging editors, many of whom had no involvement in the article or AfD. One of the editors was a user he had given a "No Spam Barnstar" to. Light2021 wrote, "I need your help to know how we can make Wikipedia better. I am asking here as this article is going toward No consensus or Keep by baseless Press coverage."

2. At Talk:Keith Ferrazzi, Light2021 pinged users who largely had supported deletion at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry. Light2021 wrote, "Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid." The pinged editors later participated at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi.

Reverting AfD closes

1. Light2021 reverted Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airside (company) as "speedy keep".
2. Light2021 reverted Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans as "speedy keep".

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

1. Basecamp (company) (added eight maintenance tags)
2. Forever (website) (added {{BLP sources}} to an article about a website)
3. Sri Krishna Sweets (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)
4. Leonard Abramson (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)

Declined speedy deletions

The declined speedy deletions below are all between 28 June 2017 and 15 July 2017.

1. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Crowdspring two minutes after he nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination). The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs).
2. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Show-Score. The speedy was declined by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because "has rs coverage Broadway World, ABC".
3. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Ask Ziggy. The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because there was a clear consensus to keep in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc..
4. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Airside (company). The speedy was declined by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who wrote, "BAFTA nominated?!!!!!"
5. Light2021 added a {{db-spam}} tag to 10,000ft. The speedy was declined by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), who wrote, "Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional".
6. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Thad Ackel was declined here.
7. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Sarkis Acopian was declined here ("decline A7, 'There he designed and manufactured the first ever solar radio' is enough")
8. Light2021's {{db-a7}} tag for Peter Barnes (entrepreneur) was declined here ("decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD").
9. Light2021's {{db-corp}} tag for Picaboo was declined here ("decline A7, name dropped in the WSJ").
10. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g1}} tags for Astro Studios were declined here ("decline A7, linked to notable products, trim puffery and unreferenced content").
11. Light2021's {{db-g11}} tag for Core77 was declined here ("speedy deletion declined since the entire article was not outright promotional; removed one peacock word").
12. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for Stanley Foster Reed was declined here ("Decline speedy delete, founder of a magazine and journal with articles is a claim to sginificance and not unambiguous promotion")
13. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Gamil Design was declined here ("Not quite G11, but could use a lot less 'product info'.").
14. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 23 Envelope was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid")
15. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Vaughan Oliver was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
16. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Rick Poynor was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
17. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 75B was declined here ("Decline speedy, don't really see blatant spam here. File at AfD if desired.")
18. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for RKS Design was declined here.
19. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Ravi Sawhney was declined here.
20. Light2021's {{db-repost}} tag for FlipKey was declined here ("you can not request a speedy deletion after you just started an AFD for this. It was also recreated three years ago and things have been added").
21. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for DragonLord Enterprises, Inc. was declined here.
22. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for AlchemyAPI were declined here ("'As of February 2014, it claims to have clients in 36 countries and process over 3 billion documents a month.' seems notable to me.).
23. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Active Collab was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
24. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Agnantty was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
25. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for JForce was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.").
26. Light2021's {{db-web}} tag for Mental literacy was declined here ("not in the appropriate class of topics for A7").
27. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for MindMapper was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.")

Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [1], [2], [3]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the evidence presented, I feel that a temporary topic-ban from deletion-related processes would be in Light2021's best interests. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support your expanded proposal, S Marshall, which will address the disruptive editing. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory. He is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Version

I understand all the above concerns, I have nothing but one thing to say. Judge me after April 2017 Events. Above you have mentioned 27

articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning.

• As for fair investigation. Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources are exatly Press coverage or Corporate Spam. Isn't being Personal from Cunard ends, here also he selectively and cunningly mentioned sources as if I am the one holds all the fault. Now he will say, I am making comment against him. He has all the power being an Admin.

Be fair, and don't bite if you don't like someone. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deliberate attempt to prove my selection wrong. These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field. in his talk page, he commented on me, and made a perception about me. No body questioned such admins.

Here is the such example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination) . On what ground he kept one paragraph articles? Just to prove my AfD wrong, and many such cases. No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia. Now he will have an option to Ban me. for speaking the blunt truth. That is correct, such articles are protected not by Paid editors but by such admins who are corrupt in doing their work. Speaking strongly will be deleted or banned by such Admins. Good Luck!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We are getting out of the realms of disruption and into competence is required here.

• User:Cunard is not an admin.
• " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
• "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia. From the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well. Every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.

• Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like. Its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
• On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be. That way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [4]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[5]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion. It looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't. But you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material. He gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade. In the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Last chances"
  
  I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
  1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
  2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
  3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
  4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
  5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
  6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
  At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

  I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me.

  
  Continued canvassing
  
  In the November 2016 topic ban discussion, Light2021 canvassed seven editors.

  In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors. This is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.
  
  Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion
  
  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note It has been deleted by AfD Process. It was not a bad nominations again. I do understand what I am doing, just for clarifications. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "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."

Cunard (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial. In practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable. He nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors. He digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this." – well said. Many of the same concerns here were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 and the same disruptive editing continues to happen eight months later.

  Cunard (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard you seem to be throwing up every allegation you can think of in hopes something sticks. You evidently don't like Light2021's views on deleteion. Suck it up and try policy at AfD instead of trying to railroad an editor you don't agree wity. User:Light2021 make sure you turn on your CSD log under twinkle preferences. That will help you refute the alleged CSD mistakes. We all get CSD declines, the question is are they a big percentage or not. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support topic-banning Light2021 from deletion processes because of their pattern of inadequate application of policies and guidelines related to deletions. They create a lot of unnecessary work for other editors in reviewing deletion nominations, as well as risking unnecessary deletion of many articles, which is not good for Wikipedia. In their contributions to AfD in the past few days during this ANI discussion, I see inadequate application of WP:BEFORE combined with rapidly nominating many articles for deletion. I went through several of their recent AfD nominations where the nomination reason was based on lack of notability and sources, and I saw sufficient sources to support a keep vote for six: Qwikcilver, Wrike, Mavenlink, Rightware, Eckovation, Paymentwall. I couldn't find sufficient sources for three, but I did find additional sources that weren't noted in the nomination: Olympusat, PurpleTrail, FusionForge. I didn't review all their recent AfD nominations, but out of those ones, it's not a good ratio. (For the record, XfD Stats for Dreamyshade says 80.8%.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban from deletion process, per WP:CIR. Despite numerous cautions and blocks, Light2021's deletion rationales rarely make much sense. Sure there is a problem with business promotion on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other Wikipedians working on the issue that have a much better grasp of deletion policies and who are capable of constructing cogent (and coherent) arguments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just had to decline another G11 nomination, again for an article that has been edited by several contributors since 2011. I think that, if he is not sensible enough to keep a low profile and reign in his nominations whilst an ANI discussion is ongoing, it is highly unlikely that Light2021 is going to be able to edit in this area in a constructive way. At this point I would strongly support a topic ban from the deletion process. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose he is doing a good service with no one presenting evidence his nominations are regularly outside policy. NO we don't have enough users working on removing SPAM and we should not be removing a deducted SPAM fighter. That G11 decline was borderline and the page is in fact SPAM. Had the page been newer with fewer editors it would be an easy G11. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The editor has had numerous chances to adjust and fix their mistakes but instead they continue with the wrong CSDs, AFDs etc etc so an indef topic ban is the only answer, Temporary won't work because they'll just go back to how they were and we'll all be here again. –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban, support block the next time they canvass. As has been pointed out above, their G11 tagging is not that far off the mark especially since the standard is so variable and neither is their AfD !votes. We should not be clubbing the opposition, even if I disagree sometimes with them. I am equally supportive of the position that the editor should be summarily blocked again if he continues to make personal attacks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban- this editor's value doing useful spam fighting work significantly outweighs their semi-regular misfires. Reyk _YO! 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban - despite being warned and making promises to the contrary, he continues to attack and tag bomb articles. Strike 1 was changing my discussion title in the talk page to accuse me of being a paid editor. Strike two was tag bombing the article. Strike three was canvassing, which resulted in two delete votes. Srike four was just adding new tags [[6]] despite being warned here. There are other critical editors like DGG, SwisterTwister and K.e. Coffman, but they are all civil and non-disruptive. Here's where he badgers DGG for doing an afd delete closure - a rare one where Light actually wanted to keep the article. [[7]] He's making it unpleasant for the rest of us and needs to stop. He can't help himself and will need to be banned to stop. 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}[reply]
  • Just for note: You (others to check his claims) can go through the discussion made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi. I am sure my AfD was justified as still not convincing with No-consensus was a bad nomination. Reason for his disappointment with me. He has been questioned for being a paid editor for the way he made his contributions (Undisclosed paid editing revisited). On his talk page. or like this article NJFX, questioned for being promotional. and many such cases. I don not want to add into this ANI. Nothing to say more.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this continues to make my point. Those of you saying that his toxic behavior is worth it because he rapidly identifies and deletes so much bad content, ask yourselves if the site is better because of him. How many editors will he drive away? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • These attacks are continuing here. Here is an excerpt from Light2021's longer post:

        I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level.

        AfDs participants like TimTempleton and me are not part of a "pathetic Paid Keep army". We are volunteer editors.

        Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you read and twist everything he says in the worst possible light. There is no personal attack there. He is commenting on the state of paid editing that is introducing unrelenting spam here. Many editors share these concerns. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Sorry, If I am too blunt and direct. This is humiliations of my work and contributions. I Must speak clearly here. I have to write this. I have to defend my dignity as a contributor also whether he likes me or not. Here is the the complete thought, which has been selectively presented with Quote. Seems like a disturbance to someone. I have never used Cunard or anyone's name. Why they are so much bothered if they are just contributors here? and why making Personal attack? As far as I can see this ANI is dedicated to Cunard where from my past contributions to present he has given so much work. He covered 70-80% of this ANI. I do not understand his problems with me personally, there are several people who disagree to me, but I also accept my part, No one is doing or making such ridiculous attacks as he is doing. I also disagree or agree with people. I am not making such attacks as I have been accused of. Deliberately going on every AfD I have done, making irrelevant lengthy commentary just for the sake of it. Evidently clear by other contributors also, he does not know what he is copying or pasting or from which source? where I can be wrong, but this is way beyond anything and personal attack. One Good Question to ask, has he ever ever made a Delete comment on any of my AfD, he claims to my AfD are so bad, the results and works shows otherwise though. if they are so neutral and great contributors, isn't they be neutral on participation? others agree to me and disagree to me. but these are the one, no matter how bad is article, they will go Keep, or No-consensus to every contribution I made. isn't that personal attack?

          I am shutting myself down completely. But just for note on updates on my contributions. I am not paranoid but something is definitely going on making a personal attack on Every AfD I have done (not in terms of language, but deliberate keep votes/ discussions to justify anything by any means just because I am involved, they definitely not like me much), No-consensus is also a Keep, these people can do anything. I do not want to tag anyone here as it would be wrong. But It is evidently clear, sometime with 2 votes they close the discussion with Keep, they do not care to relist them. many times they relist the delete driven AfD, till they get their army and lengthy piece of Copy-Paste into AfD to mislead it, and they close by no-consensus. They know good how to keep an articles with using Wikipedia Policies only. Its just I am helpless as their army is bigger than my thoughts and they drag me and attack me and I can not do anything to justify. and letting this Wikipedia doomed with such people. I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level. But what we can do ? We have limited platform to justify or make an appeal, these people knows well and how to use them. and they will blame on my language or counting numbers of something. They are afraid that their shop is going to shut down by contributors like me. It is just a wake up call, where we really want to go with Wikipedia? As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work.

          Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support T-ban, rapidly moving into Indef territory with the PA immediately above. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no PA - there is selective quoting and a false allegation of a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As the person who started this thread, in a change from my previous position I think I would now oppose a blanket indefinite topic ban from AfD. That's too strong, I feel, and we do need people who'll nominate spam articles at AfD. The problems here are about excessive zeal and needlessly personalising disputes, but I do feel this is someone who's basically here to improve the encyclopaedia. A sensible and proportionate remedy would consist of a parcel of less drastic measures. I've reflected some more and I would suggest (1) no pinging people or posting directly on their talk page to attract their attention to deletion discussions; (2) no G11s; (3) no speedy deletion nominations on articles about corporations (but PROD and AfD are permitted); (4) a positive requirement to provide intelligible rationales when nominating for deletion; and (5) a one-way interaction ban with Cunard, appeal at AN/I permitted after six months of good behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban as per implied expectation of Light  Light has reported an intent to disrupt Wikipedia until banned, by writing (grammar and capitalization errors in original), "As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work."  Note that I am an involved party here as I have recently identified and reverted Light's personal attack, by the use of tag bombing, on multiple content contributors at diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef. block At this point, I don't see the editor's behavior improving. If the load of blocks didn't work, I don't see how this editor can restrain from violating a T-ban. This is just a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban. There's a current discussion at WP:NCORP#How to raise NCORP standards? which discusses similar concerns as expressed by Light21 and many others at company AfD. The more I learn about paid editing, the more prevalent the problem seems to be. Some editors subsequently banned for undisclosed paid editing and / or misuse of multiple accounts have been known to participate at WP:AFC -- ouch. WP:ARTSPAM is an on-going problem, unfortunately, and banning a contributor in this area seems counterproductive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• K.e.coffman is part of Light's tag bombing team.  See this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that edit? Rentier (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• i have read this long thread and looked at many of the diffs. About the deletion nominations, Legacypac's comment above, here, is dead on point. That data are very relevant and they are not bad.

That said, Light2021 is way too passionate - the excited comments, the canvassing, the accusations against people who take different perspectives (and I do see a lot of personal attacks). This is a case where the passion that drives people to contribute (wherever there passion leads them) comes back to bite them, and everybody else. Mostly them. Their block log is as long as my arm -- 12 blocks since April 2016!

Folks here are torn because Light2021's passion is very much about Wikipedia being a high quality source of knowledge (I disagree very strongly with comments that claim that Light2021 is NOTHERE). Light2021 is very much on-mission, in this regard. very much.

But an essential part of being a WP editor is learning how to work in a community, and we all do that primarily by focusing on the content issues - on sources, policies, and guidelines. Light2021 is too personalized and plays wikipolitics too much, which is what all the canvassing is about. They apologize and say they will change, and they don't.

Their last block was 2 months. I am going to recommend a repeat two month block, the same as the last one (they have stayed unblocked since January, which is great for them), and the reason pretty much comes down to WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL.

Light2021 the meat of this case is that you are too passionate and focus too much on attacking other people and trying to "win" by socking and canvassing. Calling people's attention to issues with deletion nominations of various kinds is fine, and once you get people's attention, you need to just make the best arguments you can based on sources and the policies and guidelines; good arguments are what persuade people. The rest is noise, and it hurts you and the community. If you don't learn during this block, you can expect me to !vote for indef if we have to revisit these issues. I say that unhappily, because your eye for finding and nominating promotional pages is great, in my view. But people who cannot adapt to working in a community, cannot stay.

And about your long note above - the conspiracy theorizing is very unhelpful. You are in trouble because of your own behavior. Focus on that. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • A appreciate your views and opinion about my work. I want to work on community as every good contributors. I will go ahead and implement what you suggested. But there are few things I beg to differ, First, I learnt a lot after the blocking by few people, that I should be humble presenting my views. But the case here is very different, the major part of this AN/I dedicated to my past block behavior and twisted facts, this should not be done, focus should be made on my present behavior after April, the people who Supported this have no substantial claims that I misbehaved in a way I must have done in past. People are misbehaving and more uncivil and attacking than I am. I have to defend myself, Can't just be shut because I am part of AN/I. They humiliated me like anything. I have been Accused of Canvassing and Socking, I am nowhere using socking. Please give single example of Socking after April. This is wrong accusation. Canvasing means tagging people in my Talk page to learn more, or in AFD. I understood and It will not be repeated anywhere in future, I accepted this part and suggestions. there are few handful group of people, not all, I can go further and name them also. Who will come to my AfD deliberately, Canvassing the discussion, go ahead and ask their Group to come to my AFd, make a lengthy unnecessary commenting and distract the whole Discussion. They will attack me personally, or in group, these people and their behavior has been avoided, just because I have history of Block and I am here on AN/I. This whole discussion made a ridicule of my work and nothing else, people above made 70% commentary to do what? neutral contribution or highest degree of personal attack with baseless accusations, and ridiculously protecting and commenting on CSD where it is a matter of 100% Spam. I know What I am doing, and they also know how to protect themselves by getting rid of people like me. I am defensive as I can not allow such people to degrade my work. You also have views but you are explaining me something that I can learn about, and there are many others who make me learn and disagree to me. But these group of People, NOT EVEN A SINGLE AFD WITH DELETE vote has been found? Why? If they are so great and know how to behave ? Why not go with Delete vote on my work sometimes? Just because it is my work? Their shop is on fire? Check the Cunard Talk Page. How one admin commented and asking him to participate on my AFD, as I have been accused of Canvassing, so what we call that if not canvassing going to Talk page and ask to comment on my AFD? Why such Bias? When they do it, its policy, I do its misbehavior and canvassing? These people are making mockery of my work and twisting policies of Wikipedia for their personal gain and nothing else. They do canvassing, participate on each and every AfD I do with Keep vote without checking anything. Ignored all rules, just citing GNC selective policies. Nothing notable media, no global coverage. I am surprised how come they just Relist sometime till they get some Keep votes and just make No-consensus, eventually they win and trying to prove my work random or bad nominations, where No-Consensus is also a good work. These are the people, paid editors, they have been accused many times for writing bad articles, promotional, non-notable contributions. Check their talk page. It is evidently clear what they are doing, and why they are so much afraid of me. They are very strategic, where they make CASE STUDY of how they saved one article from deletion by making it NO_CONSENSUS. My concerns are Genuine. But I learnt that I should not be Canvassing, I should make detail remark on AfD. I am not participating on AfD after I said on my Talk page. I will work on what you said and in community with better behavior. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has proven Light2012 is off policy on CSD or AfD - in fact he is pretty accurate. He's turned on his CSD log so in the future there will be no debate on that. A whole lot of inaccurate attacks against him have been made here. He does have some behavioral issues but his post just above goes a long way to show he understands that. The humiliation here is enough for now. A Tban lacks sufficent support. This should be closed with no action against Light2021 but he needs to take the advice given here to heart. I'd strongly suggest he nominates pages and lets the discussion run. No arguing with others, no pinging others, no commenting on others. Just make the case at nomination time and forget about that AfD. Go on to identify the next deletable junk because that is what Light2021 is good at.

User:Cunard on the other hand is leveling unfair attacks on Light2021 and I see no remorse just additional unfair accusations. It streaches my good faith in his fairness or reliability. If we see any more of this behavior sanctions should be imposed. Cunard should stay away from commenting on Light2021 in any way which will really reduce the drama. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Note  Two edits have modified the previous sentence, with the 2nd a quiet edit that appears to be a disregard of WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that Cunard is levelling unfair attacks on Light is exactly the wrong way around. This thread contains links to numerous examples of Light badgering and making direct, personal attacks on Cunard in AfDs, starting with the very first post by me. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is the only place where Cunard has responded. I would object to any close that doesn't contain a behavioural remedy defending Cunard from Light2021's inappropriate personalisation of content disputes.

Light2021 has promised to change his behaviour before, of course. I can only admire your exceptional ability to assume good faith in the face of all the evidence. At minimum I also expect other behavioural remedies that prevent him from canvassing, using G11, using any CSDs on corporations or products, or making incoherent or unintelligible AfD noms. Where we agree is that it's not needful to block him.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not convinced, but I can support your willingness to try.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest many of the examples show poor behavior, but my point is some Cunard accusations are really really inappopriate ones unsupported by diffs. He should really learn to focus on actual proven problems not throw up random accusations with diffs that don't support them. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The actual proven problems are:- Light2021 initially became involved with Wikipedia when he was attempting to promote Exioms, a business based in New Delhi with which he rather obviously has a COI. During that very first AfD of his, a number of new accounts did show up to agree with Light2021, and I'm going to go ahead and say that he was socking. Transparently. That article was deleted despite his impassioned attempts to prevent that. Since then Light2021 has remained active on Wikipedia, concentrating on a very focused way on deleting articles about corporations and products. He often takes a strongly deletionist stance (which he is legitimately entitled to do), but is inconsistent about this, sometimes actively trying to retain articles which other editors would like to be removed. He canvasses and inappropriately personalises content disputes, for which he has been blocked, on several occasions and of escalating duration. He is sometimes so incoherent that some of the editors participating above have bluelinked CIR ---- personally I would say this has more to do with English not being his first language, but it's a significant concern in this thread backed up by evidence. He jumps on bandwagons (which is one of your behaviours as well, by the way, Legacypac). And he's outspokenly targeting Cunard with repeated instances of hostile commentary, in a whole succession of AfDs. This last behaviour urgently needs reining in. Cunard is meticulous and detailed, and sometimes he has a lot to say at AfD, but everything he says is focused on the sources and on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence at all of Cunard ever doing anything that falls below Wikipedian behavioural standards.

  Basically Light2021 is angry because Cunard disagrees with him and produces lots of evidence. Although I've suggested we use a complicated package of measures to avoid a block or topic ban in this case, Light2021's behaviour is well over the threshold of hostility that leads to blocks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Again I must say, Past has been quoted, nothing here to present my history with Present after the blocks. This is unfair statement. Even the criminal can become a better person, but here it seems like you want to haunt me with past examples, I have got my punishment for that already, how many times you want to hang me? If I would have been any ill intention here as stated above, I would have created another account to do my work without showing and bad past history. But I am continuing with my history and same account, not doing any socking. I have learnt a lot from back then. Secondly I have been accused as if I am the one who disagree with him, He humiliated me, made false accusations, every AfD I did, which is far good from the contributors point of view, where he wanted to Keep with Lengthy Press coverage or Copy paste job. I merely stated my view, and here cunard made every attempt possible to make a personal remark or quoting from past. Are we still discussing my past behavior or is it something new? I agree that I should be more careful, not making any counter discussion, just nominate and let it take the course whatever it may take, and Cunard and I should never participate on each other work to avoid the waste of community times and this whole drama. there are thousands other places he and I can contribute independently. i have zero interest debating him, he is good or bad, I do not want to judge him or waste my time on his behavior. I am here for Wikipedia for sure not on debating whether he is wrong or right and on My AfD there are good amount of people who can present the views and take the decisions without making any personal attacks as he did. I am not angry with him. here it may seems from this ANI that he is deliberately coming to every AfD I have done, where it can be avoided if he does not like me. I learnt my version. I am not here to fight or waste community times, I am here to contribute under my limit and with good behavior. As I understand it is community who decides how I should do without any biased and I completely agree to your suggestions and others as well, and I will do my best. Lets avoid this drama and fight of Light and Cunard. Enough of explaining my self and justifying the Past. As again and again quoting the past matter, irrelevant to present, as this present case and discussion has no substance to carry on except personalized attack on me over the past. I have taken your and other suggestions very seriously, and ready to work that way. In good faith you have to believe me that part. nothing else to add here. Thank you.Light2021 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, an admin, has accused me of "lying" (and/or "misstatements" etc) on half a dozen or more occasions, along with stating that I'm incapable of understanding basic English a couple of times. This relates to the curious case of the legitimacy of the official Wikipedia guideline status of WP:RY. [8] [9], [10], [11], [12]. He has then accused me of redacting the claim I made which he found so outrageous. In all cases, I have asked at least eleven times for diffs of the "lies" and the subsequent "redaction". [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Rubin has stated that he will only present diffs in a formal setting, so this is it, simply a request for him to provide the diff(s) of my "outright lies" and the diff(s) of my "redaction" of said outright lies. I had hoped it wouldn't need a trip to the drama board to sort this out but apparently not. Other editors appear to have made direct and overt statements calling the status of this guideline into question, yet they have not been subject to similar accusations from Rubin. Now I know this is going to spiral out of all control, because this is Wikipedia, this is ANI and I'm TRM, but I'd like, just for once, to focus on the matter at hand please. Other corollary issues which I'm sure will be brought up to divert from this should be placed in their own section. This thread needs to focus on whether this is appropriate behaviour from an admin since such unfounded accusations easily constitute personal attacks and since so many unresolved requests for evidence easily constitute a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As a reminder for anyone who wants to look into this. WP:NPA is policy and defines as personal attacks (amongst other things) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I'd like to see this complaint addressed on its merits alone, without the usual "spiral[ling] out of all control" - if at all possible. -- Begoon 12:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Going even further, I'd suggest that other commenters hold back until Arthur Rubin has had a chance to present his response. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many edit conflicts. I'll reply when I have some time at home, in about 21 hours. Diffs will also show that I told him I could only generate the diff links when I'm on my desktop, that I considered his talk page and ANI the only appropriate place to put them, and that I offered to give him the diffs on his talk page, but he had previously "banned" me from his tall page, and refused to "allow" me to post the list on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will also provide diffs which show that he considers any editor who disagrees with him WP:BULLYing, and that his demand for my not using his talk page was caused by my giving him credit for pointing out problems, and posting requests to fix them in the proper venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a longer reply, but I had edit conflicts, and I cannot easily recover it on my desktop. I also attempted to redact TRM's identity from the complaint, but I further alleged that the misstatements require an admin close for an RfC in Talk:2017; further redaction would make my request for an admin close meaningless. I shouldn't have named TRM as the liar in that venue, but having done so, further redaction is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, the point is that you refused to supply links for the past week or two yet continued to promote this "outright lying" campaign at most venues you could. You didn't need a "formal location" for such diffs, any location you chose to repeat the personal attacks would have been fine. You have certainly been able to respond quicker, and per ADMINACCT, you have failed in that duty. Per NPA, you have also repeatedly attacked me at various venues across Wikipedia with your accusations of (a) me "lying" and (b) me "redacting the lie" while (c) allowing a number of other editors to apparently say the things you accused me of without any recourse. How odd. And yes, as I noted, you'll be attempting to divert scrutiny over your failure of admin duties by providing other spin, do that in another thread because this is simply about your refusal to supply evidence to support the many personal attacks you have made despite multiple requests, per NPA and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You have had weeks to get this information together, yet you abjectly refuse. That's not good enough. With your selected attacks on me across multiple venues without evidence, you should resign your mop immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. Your personal attacks against me are quite relevant as to why I didn't redact complaints about your editing, which I posted in the wrong venue. I am willing to apologize for posting them to the wrong venue; however, absurd statements being made about the content and status of WP:RY at Talk:2017 require an admin close of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about personal attacks on you? The only issue being dealt with here is your refusal to supply diffs for weeks and weeks despite you using every venue across Wikpiedia to personally attack me. I'm not interested in your "redactions", I'm interested in your evidence that I "lied" and your evidence that "I redacted that lie" and your reasoning for not supplying this evidence for at least two weeks and your abuse of your position. Now then, I don't care about RY, I don't care about "venues", I care about NPA and ADMINACCT. Address those issues please, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a couple of things about the ability (or lack of) to post "diffs". Firstly, I tried it tonight, while walking, with a three-year-old iPhone, and copied a diff to my sandbox in around thirty seconds. Secondly, I recommended to you that you seek technical help with accumulating and posting diffs, from someone with the capability to do it in a timely fashion. Thirdly, it would have been so simple to just say "your lie is found at page X with date/timestamp Y". Yet, despite your position as an admin, your requirements per ADMINACCT, your obligation per NPA, you refused to do any of these for more than two weeks, so here we are, wondering why you should be an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, it's time to stop this thread, before it does indeed "spiral out of control". I strongly suggest that comments stop until Arthur Rubin posts his response, as he has above said he will do sometime tomorrow. At that point, either his response will show that he has or has not any evidence for his comments about TRM. At that point, we can continue forwards. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, so Rubin has had two weeks to post a response and refused to do so. I just wanted others to know that I had given him many, many options on how to proceed before we ended up at the drama boards. Yet again, it needs to be assessed in the context of his position as an admin. And now we wait while he gets to pick when and how he wants to continue. Bravo. 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)

• That's fine - if he doesn't post a response tomorrow, then the situation can also continue forwards. But there is nothing to be gained from a continual back-and-forth between the two of you with no useful outcome, frustrating as it might be for you. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point has been missed. It's clear from Rubin's edit history that he has been online here every single day since my first request to provide evidence to substantiate his personal attack. He didn't, he hasn't, he's repeated the same attacks across Wikpiedia. It's now actually too late to apologise, redact etc, what we're examining here is his abuse of position, NPA violations and ADMINACCT fail. That needs nothing more from him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this incident involves an admin refusing to even acknowledge their behaviour - there's a clear case to be made for removal of the admin tools. Possibly via arbcom if need be, but nobody here wants that. As such, I would like to make the following proposal... Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, then! I'll start putting together a case - I'll wait 48 hours before filing to allow for response - They've already had weeks so I feel that I'm being generous here... Twitbookspacetube 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on my close, Twitbookspacetube, I strongly believe community-based desysopping should exist in order to ensure adminship isn't such a big deal. It's been repeatedly proposed and shot down, though, so meh. As it stands, a discussion on desysopping wouldn't be actioned by the beauracrats or stewards, so it's not possible. (This is not a comment on the specifics of this case; I haven't read anything about them.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also by way of observation -- if you do put together a case to bring to ArbCom, they're very unlikely to take it up unless you show a history of misconduct or abuse of the admin tools. I think that a single instance would have to be particularly egregious before it qualifies as the basis for a desysopping case. (In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them take a case brought to them based on a single instance -- as opposed to when they themselves react to a instance of misbehavior, and desysop on their own initiative.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30+ hours since this was filed and no sign of any appropriate response from Arthur Rubin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he said he will respond in about 21 hours, 25 hours ago. I've been also waiting for the input though. Alex Shih^Talk 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting three weeks for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Alex why did it require multiple requests by TRM and an ANI report to compel Arthur Rubin to provide diffs? He is not a few hours tardy; he's missed the mark for two or three weeks now. As a person who edits almost exclusively on a mobile device, I find his smartphone excuse unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be running a fever. My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(As of 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC), Arthur Rubin has held true to this) pbp 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has said anything different. Thanks for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging this thread to prevent premature archiving. Of course, the discussion over why it would take three weeks for an admin to provide evidence to substantiate the various personal attacks can continue regardless, the diffs themselves are, by now, almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging again, to ensure thread stays on notice board. Once again, regardless of any diffs that Rubin might supply, the case of him not supplying them to support his various personal attacks despite nearly a dozen requests to do so can surely be discussed without his presence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, it can, and it should. Sadly, all you can really get here is "Arthur has done wrong, and is reminded not to do wrong again", and a record that you tried to resolve the dispute, so that arbitration requests don't get rejected as premature. That truly sucks, and I sympathise. For the record, though, I do think the failure to provide the requested diffs, after repeated requests, is a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. -- Begoon 11:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the community's acknowledgement that the admin offered unfounded personal attacks over a span of weeks and yet refused to supply any evidence, contrary to ADMINACCT and NPA, can be established right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this being regretful, and sets a dangerous precedent for ADMINACCT. Hopefully the case will have a proper closure soon. Alex Shih^Talk 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging the thread once again to ensure it is addressed properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, I started to place a DNAU on this thread yesterday but found someone else already has. It will not be archived and no one should manually archive this either. You won't have to nudge it and we will expect the response from AR per WP:ADMINACCT.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the note about the archiving. However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As instructed above, I have waited 48 hours after my last comment here, then filed a case at arbcom which can be found here. Twitbookspacetube 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same Admin has made many serious accusations against me and refused to provide any evidence. He even pulled a user right without evidence. Worst Admin here. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you'd reflexively dive on a bandwagon, of course... -- Begoon 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rubin did instigate an involved block a few weeks ago and accused a good faith editor of being a vandal, so it's pretty clear that my experience is not unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, perhaps my comment was a bit harsh, but, without any additional diffs provided, the coveted award of Worst Admin here seemed pretty strong. -- Begoon 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess Legacypac could offer some of those diffs here or at the Arbcom case to substantiate such a claim. Although Legacypac isn't an admin, we still expect to see diffs for such statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the next section (I moved to User:Legacypac/AR) TRM's treatment by AR sounds very familiar. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and provision of diffs Legacypac, perhaps you should consider RFA! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the quick response, Legacypac, and my apologies, again, for my brusqueness. -- Begoon 10:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AR has established by his behavior we can say anything nasty we like about him without any proof of misconduct. Heck we could even remove his bit without any evidence like he did to me. I operate on a different standard. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This topic cannot be handled at ANI and the whole section should be closed. Please keep evidence for the Arbcom case that will not proceed until the subject returns to editing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this ANI thread should be closed yet. The Arbcom case may not be accepted. And in any case there would seem to be aspects of this situation—separate from any Arbcom case—which might be addressed here. And in particular, Arthur Rubin has promised to respond here to the request for diffs—as soon as he is able– and I for one would like to see his response (or lack thereof) before this section incident is closed. Paul August ☎ 11:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would seem a bit "Catch-22", when a requirement for an ARBCOM case is that all previous dispute resolution steps have been exhausted, to close this attempt now. I'd like to see Arthur's response too, and I hope he will soon recover and return, but, equally, I don't think we need to wait indefinitely for that before deciding if there was already an ADMINACCT issue here, prior to his illness. -- Begoon 12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom have now hatted the case because although Rubin is editing elsewhere online, he's too ill to edit Wikipedia. Coddling the protected admins, the admins who use personal attacks and fail to abide by ADMINACCT, day on, day out. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "hatting" will only be temporary. @The Rambling Man: How do you know Arthur Rubin is editing elsewhere online? Paul August ☎ 23:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: this question may be somewhat difficult for The Rambling Man (or any other editor) to respond to, because of the implications regarding WP:OUTING. —Sladen (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused here. TRM's complaint seems to be that AR has made accusations against him and then failed to provide any evidence. If that is so, it strikes me as odd that TRM would choose to make an accusation against AR that he cannot substantiate without running afoul of the policies on outing. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be confused. Like here, Rubin edits under his own name across the Internet, it's not hard to establish that he is only too ill to edit Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on the users involved here, but am I correct in assuming that the only way an abusive administrator can be desysopped is through Arbcom action, which they they can defeat by taking a wikibreak? If so, that might explain why abusive admins say "go ahead, try to get me desysopped" as they know the process. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At the Arbcom case, I commented that the filing was premature but that was only because I had faith Arthur was telling the truth about his timely illness. However, if what TRM says is true and Arthur really is active on other websites, just not Wikipedia, then Arbcom should proceed. There simply is too many excuses by this admin that I can poke holes in and if this gets swept under the rug, I can not even begin to describe my level of disgust.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After what the arbitration committee did to kww on your behalf, I think you're the last person who should be whining about them. That said, it is true that the ArbCom has in the past been too indulgent of people feigning illness to avoid an arbcom motion; remember A Nobody, anyone? Reyk _YO! 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious... are you saying that ArbCom is too lenient in recent years compared to the A Nobody request or that they were too lenient then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too lenient back then. IIRC that editor feigned a very obviously fictional kidney complaint just as his arbcom case was starting, which did not prevent him socking here or editing heavily at Wikia including blocking people there who'd annoyed him here. And the arbitration committee rather meekly seemed to accept this "illness" and stick the case on the shelf. I was annoyed at the time that arbcom did not even attempt to question the extremely obvious deception. In the end A Nobody was permabanned at ANI, which got arbcom off the hook a bit. Now we see another case where someone may be dodging an arbcom motion allegedly on health grounds while still being heavily active elsewhere. Now, I haven't looked deeply into the Arthur Rubin situation so it might be unfair of me to compare him to A Nobody; in that situation I was being personally maligned so I took more notice of it. My only point is that arbcom has previously taken blatant malingering at face value and I'd like them not to do so again. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of the A Nobody request, since I wasn't particularly active then and probably didn't even know what ArbCom was. It looks like ArbCom indef banned him until such point where he would agree to return and participate in a case... Is this what you find too lenient? Did I miss something? (Genuine question. ArbCom case requests that don't turn into cases are difficult to look through these days, and they weren't better seven years ago. Let me know if you want me to take this to your talk page, btw, I'm not sure it's particularly germane to this discussion.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying here, had to commute. We hatted the case until Arthur Rubin returns, as we've done in the past with other cases focused on a single party where that party is not editing Wikipedia. We'll unhat it when he returns. I have no idea where Arthur Rubin has been elsewhere online, though I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because he is not so ill he can't operate a computer, he is well enough to have the energy to come back to Wikipedia while he's the focus of an ArbCom case request.

@Coretheapple: No. If an abusive administrator were the subject of an ArbCom case and took a temporary wikibreak, we'd just resume it when they returned. We had a case a while ago (Toddst1, I think), where an admin stopped editing. The case was never resumed because Toddst1 didn't return until after he was desysoped for inactivity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Is that same courtesy extended to ordinary users who are hauled before arbcom? Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At least, I can't recall any cases we've held against someone who was completely absent – I hope I'm not wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple - Speaking as a disinterested party with zero ties to Arbcom: it is indeed a common practice to recess from activity when a participant, regular user or administrator, is unable to effectively participate in an Arbcom process. This reality has been gamed from time to time, I strongly suspect, but it remains a fact. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without implying anything either way on the particular users and behavior being discussed here (I have not examined the evidence myself and thus have no opinion on that) is it actually true that, if Arbcom declines to accept a request for desysopping, that ANI can do nothing, no matter how good or bad the evidence is? Surely that was not the intent of the policy. If the admin's behavior is bad enough (again, I have no opinion as to whether this is true in this case) ANI could decide on a community block or a community recommendation for desysoping, right?

Now in this case, Arbcom (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT) has put the case on hold for reasons (hasn't edited for five days) which would customarily not be accepted as a reason to put an ANI case on hold. Should we put this on hold as well, close it with a request to refile if Arbcom doesn't act in X days, or continue on with it?

BTW, this may be an example of the Super Mario Effect.

Background: In Mario Brothers, When Small Mario takes a hit, he dies. When Super Mario takes the same hit he turns into Small Mario. The obvious analogy would be a case where when a regular user misbehaves badly enough he is site banned, but when an administrator misbehaves in the exact same way he is desysopped and becomes a regular user.

There is also an even larger and far rarer Giant Mario, who can walk over and destroy everything in his path, including the largest and most powerful enemies. Eventually Giant Mario reverts to being Super Mario. The analogy here is left as an exercise for the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your very apt analog: given that the entire process is dominated by administrators, it strikes me as a case of regulatory capture in an almost comically exaggerated sense. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the community can't take away admin rights but the community can block or ban. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph is right. The community can't desysop, but they could impose sanctions or block/ban the administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, The community can recommend desysopping, and if there is a strong consensus behind the recommendation (again, not established in this particular case) it is likely that an followup request to Arbcom will result in them doing the desysopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that would be the case, but, in reality, ARBCOM will do whatever its members decide. Policy says the community may not desysop, and ARBCOM, theoretically, will not "make" policy. So an ARBCOM discussion can easily override, or just plain ignore, your "strong consensus". As I said above, that sucks, and we should seek to change it. -- Begoon 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, and when the wronged party is considered persona non grata by Arbcom then it's even more likely that it would be ignored. However, that's precisely why I want this discussion to continue, we don't need permission from anyone to discuss this behaviour, we don't need Rubin to be present to discuss his behaviour, and a consensus is growing that he has not only made multiple, unfounded personal attacks, but that he has summarily failed in his duty as an admin to respond to the dozen or so requests. Where we go when this discussion is done is another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMINACCT says in part "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...

• Bad faith" adminship...
• Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility...)
• Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (not applicable)

• Failure to communicate– this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). (For weeks, then this thread and ArbComm)
• Repeated or consistent poor judgment

AR recent conduct meets 4 out of 5 past reasons for sanctioning or stripping Admin powers. He is unquestionably continuing to breach point 4 right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, find it awfully convenient that AR suddenly fell ill to the point where they can type, but not use CTRL+C and CTRL+V. In addition, the mobile editing excuse does not hold up as edits from a mobile device are tagged. As such, I would like to request that, until AR provides the evidence that has been requested for a month and counting, they are to be blocked from editing due to the blatant disregard for WP:ADMINACCT and the repeated failure to provide diffs constituting a violation of WP:NPA. Twitbookspacetube 00:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edits from a mobile device are tagged I am not sure of the exact combination of browser, app, etc. that cause edits to be tagged as mobile, but not all mobile edits are tagged as such. I occasionally edit from a mobile device and I don't recall ever having any of my edits tagged. At any rate, I don't see what would be accomplished by your proposed action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I hope to achieve is to enforce the standard of conduct expected of a standard user, never mind an administrator that should be held to an even higher standard to remain as such. If arthur was not an admin, they would have been blocked by now. Hell, I've seen users facing a community ban for less than what this thread was started on! Twitbookspacetube 03:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I would assume that the reason why Arthur Rubin hasn't been blocked where a non-admin editor would be blocked is because we've all been hung up on the fact that he is an admin, rather than it being a result of the administrator cabal protecting their own. (Good faith, ahoy!) Given TRM's clear evidence (supported by diffs) of Arthur Rubin's accusations and blatant refusal to provide diffs, Arthur Rubin is clearly in breach of WP:NPA, as he has made repeated "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." As Legacypac has experienced remarkably similar (and much more egregious) behaviour from Arthur Rubin and Rubin's quite frankly ridiculous and insulting avoidance of this issue, any possible block for breaching WP:NPA should not be the end of the matter, and his adminship should continue to be evaluated. Cjhard (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would Oppose any block or ban that makes it impossible (as this proposal does) for Arthur Rubin to supply on Wikipedia the diffs being requested here as well as respond on Wikipedia to the requested ARBCOM case. As I said above, I for one want to see the promised diffs, as well as see Arthur Rubin's response to the ARBCOM case request. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A block would not prevent diffs being provided on AR's talk page as long as he is allowed to retain the right to edit it. The block could also be lifted with the condition that the lifting is purely to permit participation in the Arbcom case if that were to go ahead. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, any other (non-admin) editor would be blocked for so many personal attacks without evidence. His talk page was and still is a perfectly legitimate venue for the evidence that has been requested a dozen times over the past month. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So User:Paul August can we count on your support now? Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well so far the Twitbookspacetube's proposal remains unchanged. My main concern is that nothing prevent Arthur Rubin's suppling the promised diffs here, as well as prevent the ARBCOM case request from moving forward, while the current proposed block does both. In any case, as a purely practical matter, a block or ban would have no effect as long as Arthur Rubin remains away. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: Well. The important thing is that diffs are supplied. And if they are to be supplied here, and they are blocked, then per usual process, they can put them up on their talk, and an editor of good standing places them here for the community's consideration. which is what usiually happens; the alternative is that someone is unblocked on condition that they only edit here or at ARBcom- again, there's a demonstratble process for this situation. As for your second point, their absence is part of the actual behavioural issue under question; arguably, it is the fact that they (so suddenly?) are 'away' that has exacerbated the original issue, and heightened opinion, as far as it seems to have. — fortunavelut luna 14:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support He's not editing anyway so the block is not going to hurt too much. The community can block anyone and Admins block editors all the time based on just one Admin's opinion of wrong doing. This is the only sensable action given the circumstances. Action was already taken to ensure the thread is not archived - so do we carry on discussing until he comes back to post diffs that don't exist? There is lots of proof of misbehavior. His (undeserved and abused) Adminship (See User:Legacypac/AR)is the only reason he has not been blocked yet. When I'm sick in bed I up my editing activity, not decrease it cause I'm bored and can't do much else. Hopefully he gets over his case of ANi Flu soon. If he returns he can appeal the block on hos talkpage with the diffs requested by TRM or a full admission and apology for his misbehaviour and perhaps a resignation of adminship. Admins refuse unblocks all the time when the editor refuses to admit they are wrong so why should AR's case be different? When he appeals, the community can look at his appeal and decide. Also, I'm very confident the needed diffs don't exist. What editor in their right mind would take something to ANi and ArbComm complaining of unfair personal attacks if there were diffs proving otherwise? That would be super risky. Please Support the Block - it's the only fair way to deal with this situation if we really believe Admins are just community members who are trusted with extra tools. As an Admin AR should be held to a higher standard not given a free pass. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Firstly, admins need to be held to a higher standard. Not because they are better, but because they represent Wikipedia and need to abide by the rules. In addition, I find it odd that he has temporarily disappeared from Wikipedia. The cynic in me thinks that is done hoping this will go away. If he's gone, there is no harm in blocking and if he returns, he can still edit his talk page and resolve this and request an unblock. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in part per my resp @Paul August above, but also in the interests of preventing community processes to be hamstrung in the face of behavioural and accountability issues. — fortunavelut luna 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As an outsider looking in, I’m not sure what I’m finding more unbelievable; (A) Arthur’s ‘illness’, or (B) people still expecting diffs for an accusation that was so obviously false. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amply justified. The double standard that elevates admins above the hoi polloi is corrosive to the project and needs to end. Either act against abusive administrators or formally adopt the principle that being an admin is a very, very big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Arthur's objectionable behavior needs to be treated with the same standard as any other editor. I commend TRM for his patience and civility during his simple request for diffs. With all the suspicious cop-outs Arthur has given so far, I would not be surprised if there were no diffs to begin with that support his claims.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose can't believe no one has noted that since he's not editing, the block would be purely punitive. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE certainly #3, uh uh, and tendentially #2. — fortunavelut luna 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what "uh uh" is supposed to signify, but that's not the spirit of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Blocking trolls and vandals can deter them from future trolling and vandalism, but blocks are not meant purely for punishment. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's purely preventative not punitive. It will prevent him from editing until he addresses the issues he is systematically avoiding (Admins must be willing to address and justify their actions per WP:ADMINACCT). It is also to prevent his abuse of Admin tools (as he did against me recently) and as he has threatened use the tools against TRM (per the diffs at the top). Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel this is all based on prejudice against administrators, I can see no other reason for this vehement overreaction. Also a procedural close with Twitbookspacetube is guilty of WP:FORUMSHOP with the ArbCom case request on hold. Honestly it has the feeling of mob mentality all over it, with rhyme and reason all left behind. As such it should dismissed by any closer as a prejudicial attempt to subvert WP:BLOCK with a punitive rather than preventative rationale. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. Did you read the opening post where this admin made half a dozen personal attacks against me and despite me requesting around a dozen times for evidence to substantiate the claims, he refused, so that's an abject failure of WP:NPA and a definite failure of WP:ADMINACCT. There's no "mob mentality", just a community fed up to the eye teeth of admins and Arbcom protecting one another. It's time that stopped, it's time all editors were held accountable, admins more so, per ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The record is replete with behavior the likes of which has gotten plenty users blocked. I agree that admins ought to be held to a high standard but that's irrelevant here. AR is not breaching any higher standard. He, repeatedly, breaching the basic standard of behavior. A lot. Participation in the ARBCOM case is a red herring. It should stay on hold until AR indicates that he's now healthy and ready to participate. As long as he has talk page access, he's got a way to notify us of his recovery. Then, he can offer evidence on his talk page or the block can be lifted only for the purpose of participating in the ARBCOM case.
  Really, this oughtn't be a hard call. The behavior is pretty egregious, the refusal to provide diffs bespeaks the unliklihood that such diffs exist and the onset of the illness strains credulity. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Admin tools are used to protect the encyclopaedia. Since Arthur Rubin is not currently editing, there is no urgent need at this time to use the admin tools. That said, Arthur does have questions to answer and he should do so on his return to editing. I would not be opposed to a restriction (a ban?) on editing until he does provide answers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone just use this tactic when they are brought to ANI with conclusive evidence of bad behavior -- claim they can't provide diffs for two/three weeks and have a timely illness (Wikigitis?) to avoid a block? Or is this reserved primarily for admins?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin tools are also used as threats against users. Blocking edtors isn't related to whether they have the admin tools or not. Urgency is not the issue. The refusal to provide diffs relating to half a dozen personal attacks over three weeks, despite a dozen requests, is the issue. A normal editor would have been blocked days/weeks ago. This admin is being afforded very special treatment, way beyond what is given to the rest of us. And Arbcom are backing him up too by ignoring the flagrant abuse of his position, somehow claiming he needs to be present to answer for his overt failings. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You say you would not oppose a restriction on editing until he does provide answers, yet you just did so. This proposal is not to take away admin rights. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment blocks are often used to enforce a site ban (which you do support) so the difference is semantics. Site ban him and use a block to enforce sound better? His refusal to edit is a large part of the reason for the block/ban. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Call me biased, I don't care. I was involved with the admin and TRM at Talk:2017. I don't think my dislike for the admin is hidden. At first, the discussion only involved the same users. I was first appalled by TRM's behaviour. It was rather childish. Then Arthur Rubin appeared and it was just worse. Admins are expected to held at higher standards, but this admin was way low from that. They were feuding with TRM and I just stopped because it got so ridiculous. They made comments that were not backed up even after being asked to provide diffs. They never did so despite being asked a bunch of times. You expect so much more from an admin, and this behaviour was just so ridiculous. Had this a regular user, I am sure they would have been blocked by now. Admins are expected to be treated the same as other users. Having administrator tools does't give you immunity. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There were comments on the RFAR (possibly deleted by now) that AR has been editing other sites while claiming to be too ill to supply diffs here. If that evidence can be supplied in this section, I think that would be sufficient cause to insist that AR begin to supply the requested diffs within 72 hours or face sanctions such as a block. (By the way, if he were blocked, he could still supply the diffs on his talkpage.) It's been six days since he claimed "I seem to be running a fever." Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've been closing Afds and came across the following Afds related to the music group Phase, which seem to have the same editors+ips (at least two who seem SPAs) commenting on the same things, and in some cases, literally with the same words (copy paste moves of their comments); and voting keep multiple times in the same Afd. At least one of the editors MusicPatrol has been warned about attacking other editors who voted delete. Premeditated Chaos has also commented on obvious SPAs in one of their closures. But the mass of keep voters (apparent SPAs) is there in many Afds. The Afds are as follows:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point of You
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wait (Phase album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Consequence
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amethyst (Phase song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase (band)

I'm pinging TParis and Premeditated Chaos who closed two of the Afds, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Amberrock, Night of the Big Wind, SubRE and TenPoundHammer who have left significant comments within these Afds, and Asouko and MusicPatrol who seem to be the main keep protagonists (I'm separately notifying these two on their talk page too). I wanted to request for some admin eyes to check the validity of some of the !votes. Thanks. Lourdes 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging JamesBWatson and TenPoundHammer again as I messed up the pinging earlier. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Looking back at the contribs of both Asouko and MusicPatrol, I'm starting to think they might be the same person. There's this complete and utter focus on Phase as a band with very few edits elsewhere, language/grammar issues with each, and a worrying tendency for both to go running to music-focused editors asking for "expert" help preserving the Phase-related articles.

If you look at MusicPatrol's early contribs they're all copy-pasted tag bombs and baseless CSD tags on other bands. The tag-bombs MusicPatrol adds were identical to a set of tags that were placed on the Phase article when it was nominated for deletion in 2012, both in what tags were used and the order they were put in. All that was changed was the date: Original vs. MusicPatrol bombs: [26] [27] [28] (there are more at the bottom of MusicPatrol's contribs page, and more that are visible to admins in their deleted contributions). And yet MusicPatrol never edited the Phase article until 2017, so how did they find that specific tag pile to copy/paste if they weren't keeping an eye on the page? I'm thinking the MusicPatrol account was created as a bad hand to Asouko's good hand, as some kind of POINT-making tit-for-tat exercise ("if our band gets tagged so does everyone's"). They did a little more of that behavior when they initially returned in 2017 as well.

As an aside, MusicPatrol didn't participate in the original AfD for Phase, but a user called User:Hibaghanem did. Hibaghanem also only ever edited Phase-related content and did participate in the Phase AfD, complaining that Phase wasn't any worse than a bunch of other bands, many of whom were among those tag bombed by MusicPatrol as noted above. Hibaghanem's first edit is to add Phase to the discography of Duncan Patterson ([29]), and Asouko's second edit (after creating Phase's article) is to wikilink that addition to point to Phase (band) ([30]). Later, Hibaghanem nearly blanks MusicPatrol's talk page, removing a huge amount of "speedy-declined" template messages. Then Hibaghanem leaves a message that complains about MusicPatrol's tagging of the now-deleted Black Winter page, which Asouka had edited but Hibaghanem never had. While that's not proof positive of anything prohibited, the behavior of all three accounts strikes me as massively sketchy at least. Hibaghanem is stale now though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{moved from User talk:PMC. Lourdes 01:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I see you've raised concerns about me... I appeared on wikipedia to correct what I thought of being dodgy in here, pretty much like SubRE done but after admins talked me into correcting articles I have done so. I crossed Phase as I was browsing Anathema's page and then checked Asouko's edits and logged in and tried and revert the edits unsuccessfully. And it ended up being some sort of Vendeta. I don't know what's wrong in that really. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed you've done a great job Reading all the logs and that which I had done the first three days of the thing my self, it appears that Hibaghanem was a photographer from Syria and the account being not used makes sense, Syria being a warzone. All the edits she's done where changed by Colonieschris. About Asouko I don't think being protective over an article you've created, and SubRE can be proved useful for wikipedia if he is reading the guidelines before he is waiting anything. But that's just me again. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What raises my eyebrows is that you showed up, supposedly as a brand new user, and no more than 10 minutes after you registered your account, you started tag bombing other bands with the exact same tag combo (even in the same order!) as had been placed on the Phase (band) page. That's extremely unusual behavior for new editors. Most n00bs will copyedit here or there, add in little factoids, or maybe try to create a new article. But turning up out of nowhere and slapping piles of maintenance tags and CSD tags on a slew of articles all in a row? It's unusual to the point of absurdity.

Both you and Asouko have extremely similar writing patterns, with grammar and spelling errors and overuse of ellipses, you have the same obsessive interest in a select few articles, you have the same tendency to go running to other music-focused editors asking for "expert" help. You guys are not passing the duck test in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly enough for an SPI, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I one learns from observation... go and check SubRE's behaviour and you will notice how he did clumsy edits and then started changing the patterns copying other editors' behaviour after being told... I've been using wikipedia for ages before I stepped in... Anyhow I don't see why I should even be defending my self on that, it feels a bit silly if you are asking me... You can go ahead and do whatever you feel it's proper. You were appointed as an admin after all! what I couldn't take was trying to talk somebody into not doing something I was told not to do either and it all kicked off from there. I trust you will do what's best for wikipedia, I might as well carry on adf-ing pages after that if that's the correct way to go after allMusicPatrol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank God we did ask for admins to see these else nobody would see the logs. The whole argument seems like an Ad Hominem rather that checking the facts you are attacking me personally. Let me know if there's any chance to send you my phone number privately and talk, because arguing on line doesn't itch any scratch for me MusicPatrol (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it might be procedurally appropriate, but I'll request DoRD (if they agree) to check the said Afds for any socks. Thanks. Lourdes 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI with a CU request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asouko. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure) Not the purpose of this page. Possible venues include WP:VPM and User talk:Jimbo Wales. Let's refrain from characterizing good-faith discussion as "whining". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

I am extremely cautious as to even put up this topic, but I feel it's a topic that needs to be covered and answered. This is not an argument as I am not outing anyone, and certainly not writing the usernames of anyone. I've ran across some complaints from various different people stating editors and admins where violating many rules on here and it was claimed as "target harassment" usually I would shrug it off and move on, but after receiving several emails regarding this I decided to look into it. To my surprise, I have uncovered several editors and admins have indeed been abusing their rights. From blocking, denies for AFC that met the requirements, unnecessary comments, using the checkuser to place tags on users that certainly were incorrect tags, protecting articles, and names for unclear reasons, and lastly finding these editors and admins dragging these people's names through the mud via social media. When some of these admins are yet In this Committee and there is undeniable proof of all stated above, what is a user supposed to do? Other than going through wiki legal, and filling a lawsuit, why can't any of this not be handled in a civilized way? Why is this even a subjected that has to posted here? This is not something that should be going on inside of Wikipedia, we all have been here long enough to know better. I purpose an updated version of this whole issue. To avoid further complications related to this subject.FIGHTER KD 02:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any public evidence on the wiki to back this up? Otherwise, these are all allegations that have no merit. You also might want to be careful with making legal threats as they can have a chilling effect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page claims that you edited back in 2011, yet your edit history only goes back a few days. What was your previous account? Also what do you mean an 'updated version'? --Tarage (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here for this board to act on. Suggest a rapid close with a suggestion to take non specific whining to User talk:Jimbo where it belongs. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa stop and everyone calm down. I was in no way stating legal threats, I was pointing out the routes that people choose to go through instead of here or straight to the source. Not in any way threating anyone! I do apologize if anyone found my this as a threat, or whining. I was merly attempting to show people the proper route that's it! Also as I stated on my talk page "just because my username is different then it was in 2011 does not mean that I did not join in 2011. I don't have the slightest clue what my username was that long ago, I don't even remember what all I did yesterday much less 6 years ago! So I had to start from scratch!" I truly apologize for anyone thinking I had melicous intent. There's no need to get offensive and state I'm whining. I'm acting in good faith so please refrain from assuming something different. Thank you FIGHTER KD 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually bring proof, you are wasting your time. We are not going to change everything because you are upset. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• FIGHTER KD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mkdw, would you be able to tell us if this is Waffen77 or Krisdegioia? For reference, these comments and although it might not be necessarily clear from edits here on en.wiki, it becomes very clear that it is one of the above with these edits.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Who cares who is the master? The account screamed WP:NOTHERE from day one. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Johnuniq, the account is not blocked but I have leveled an accusation of sockpuppetry and worded it such that I have given the checkuser proper causation under the CU policy to perform a check. He now has the potential of finding other unblocked accounts as well as helping to assign it to the proper SPI case. Would it be safe to say that you would like to see any other sockpuppets they may have discovered and blocked?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Likely to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia. Mkdw ^talk 01:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following DESiegel's comment, I've gone back and checked the all of the IPs associated with the account and at least four others are  Confirmed. Mkdw ^talk 02:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen absolutely Zero evidence of any intent to violate Wikipedia policies on the part of FIGHTER KD, nor do any of the above linked pages appear to contain any checkuser evidence, nor any meaningful "behavioral" evidence. I would like to know on exactly what basis this user was suspected, much less "confirmed" as a sock. I am asking this specifically of Berean Hunter, the blocking admin, under WP:ADMINACCT, specifically the point that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. for a justificatiuon of this block, which appears quite unwarranted to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These deleted edits of the master compared to the these edits that I had linked above (read the messages in the photos), along with the obvious KD in their name is a good start. I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia to record the data here. Cu supporting evidence after I managed to recognize the sock should tell you something. After 10:30pm my time so I'll check back in the morning. Perhaps you could request another CU to look it over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @DESiegel: I ran a checkuser against the editor. Their IP falls within a well-known and documented range used by several of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia. Aside from block evasion, behavioural evidence which contributes to a likely finding is the fixation on cybercrimes. Something shared among the other sock accounts: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Administrative misconduct has also been raised by these accounts against any administrators that block them. These have included threats to the point where oversight has been used and some discussion with WMF Legal and CA. Finally, specific CU evidence aside from broad statements is prohibited from being discussed on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 02:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Mkdw, none of the difs you link to are by FIGHTER KD, and so they have no relevance here. I don't see that a focus on cybercrimes is particularly telling -- many people are interested in that topic, including many legitimate editors. An IP range can be used by many people, most of whom are not connected to one another, as you no doubt know. How large a range are you referring to, please? (I don't ask for details, i know those are confidential. But the size of the range involved is not.) I will examine the rest of the evidence tomorrow, as it is late for me also, but I find myself singularly unimpressed at this point. So far all i see is a rant against perceived unfairness here. The rant was ill advised, and overstated, but there is in fact a good deal of casual unfairness in several administrative processes here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: I did post a diff by FIGHTER KD (talk · contribs). In accordance with our sock puppet investigation policy, the diff of one of FIGHTER KD's edits was provided and used for comparison against edits made by other confirmed sock puppets. It is only by comparing that "behavioural evidence" can be assessed. I'm not sure how you'd propose comparing behaviour otherwise; your assertion that diffs by other editors are not relevant in such cases is severely incorrect. Raising the issue of administrative misconduct, such as in this very ANI thread by the editor, demonstrates a second pattern (in conjunction with the cybercrimes topic area) in which diffs were also provided for comparison with the other accounts.

Earlier, I know I had seen that this editor had actually posted something about Kris Degioia. It's taken me awhile, but I found it. commons:User:FIGHTER KD uploaded several photos to the Commons about Kris Degioia (some have since been deleted):

• Commons:File:Kris degioia cyberstalking victim.jpg
• Commons:File:Kris degioia and Ron Jermey.jpg
• Commons:File:Kris degioia live debate on NBC.jpg

As for the checkuser findings, the IP range is extremely small, some within the same subnet as other confirmed accounts. More than one range was used. Overlaps occurred on multiple re-appearing ranges (e.g. range 1, 2, and 3, were ALL used on accounts 1, 2, and 3). In the ranges documented, this sock master is the only one that uses them. The ranges do not appear to be public. UA results have revealed that an identical operating system and version, browser type and version, and other information were shared by FIGHTER KD and other confirmed accounts (this is in addition to the IP ranges). I won't be sharing any further checkuser information.

I understand you adopted this editor, and you're looking out for them. It would have been helpful if you had disclosed this when you commented here as your statements may have been interpreted as neutral third party. If you think there's been administrative misconduct, you know the avenues to report it. I firmly stand behind the findings here.

DESiegel, I urge you to revoke your above statements. Not only are you mistaken about some of the things I have literally said, you are wrong about the way in which some SPI evidence is evaluated, and wrong about this editor. You went so far as accusing that "in fact a good deal of casual unfairness in several administrative processes here". I do not feel you have done your due diligence to support such a statement, other than to (self-admittedly) tiredly look over a few statements. What you have done is effectively endorsed the viewpoints of the confirmed sockmaster regarding administrative abuse. Whether you intended it or not, your statement will almost undoubtedly be held onto (and probably used) going forward by this sock master (which has happened to others). I hope you seriously take into consideration the warnings I gave you about this editor regarding their history of threats and doxxing. Even their statement above alludes to much of it, such as evidence they've supposedly found on social media. I hope this resonates with you before you continue make unsubstantiated and borderline bad faith claims about fellow editors, such as Berean Hunter (and me), who are working to protect the community. Mkdw ^talk 05:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ducky to me. FYI, I just cleaned up copyvio text introduced by the sock at Field Hockey Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There was some paraphrasing done by another editor, but it was not enough to erase all the copyvio text introduced by the sock. I reverted to the pre-sock version, since it was the last clean version. Dr. K. 06:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if DESiegel is looking for further response from me at this point. I do see where he has written that he disagrees with the findings so I suggest that we let other editors continue to review this. When did you become aware of my posting that started this subsection where I stated that they are a sock? Contrary to the way that you seem to think that administrative procedures were lax, this info was posted here for quite a number of hours and no one raised a question. It isn't like I was trying to hide anything. When did you become aware? I'll be outside most of the day but will check back from time to time. I have a smoker with ribs in it and I'm not going to leave that unattended. There's quite a bit of work involved in my kitchen yet.

If any checkuser that reviews this wants to supersede my block to make it a CU block, I won't object. I invite further review from other editors as it seems that DESiegel does not accept the above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment they just posted on their talk page confirms this is a sock: "I did not reveal my name as I did not fell I was necessary, due to me coming back to Wikipedia has nothing to do with the exhausting reasons you seem to think as why I have." RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I raised the same point a couple of days ago. Their answer has, I suppose, never suffered from inconsistency... — fortunavelut luna 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, that comment confirms they have had two usernames. It does not confirm they are a sock per the definition in the first sentence at WP:SOCK. I'm assuming you simply misspoke rather than not understanding the distinction, but it's important to get the language right. If there is bad faith here, that comment alone doesn't show it. If they are a sock, they have yet to learn Rule #1 of socking, don't tell people you have had a different username. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read their unblock requests, they are openly admitting it again, unless of course I'm reading it COMPLETELY wrong. I always try to take people at their word, but this is a bit much. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You read it right, they openly admitted, again, that they have had two usernames. Which does not make them a sock, as I said. That said, reading their talk page it appears there is a history here that I wasn't aware of, and I'm over my head, so I'll shut up now and leave this to people with more experience in this area. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been determined they've been socking through confirmed checkuser results and not by self-admission. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal you can see that some IP6 addresses from Hillingdon are being used by the vandal. I would like to see a rangeblock set for 2A02:C7D:14EC:9300:xxx if possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these are all block-evading IPs, as Special:Contributions/79.78.129.41 is blocked for six months. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Six-month hardblock for the /64 range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting the range contribs and that the earliest IP in that range began editing on March 10 here and that every single edit within that range since that time has been him which is why I chose the lengthy block time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED

Marked as resolved by zzuuzz -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

 – Page listed at MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here which I think require administrator/experienced editor attention.

On the technical side, 87.102.116.36 has attempted to initiate a Miscellany for Deletion discussion for Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar). However, they have created it on a talk page, which I think is the wrong place. If would be helpful if someone who understands the deletion process well checks whether this deletion discussion is in the right place and that the other parts of the process have been followed.

However, this draft was only created four days ago as a result of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) (in which I took part). At first sight, the MfD is an attempt to override the previous consensus without going through deletion review. I note that 87.102.116.36 has properly notified the editors of the previous deletion discussion about the new one and it's easy to put a page in the wrong place. I also note that this IP has a long history of disruptive edits on the topic of British constitutional law. If someone looking with a fresh pair of eyes considers that the new MfD discussion is a blatant breach of policy, it may be better to close it rather than repair it. Matt's talk 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a widely accepted practice for IP users who can't create pages to make the talk pages and ask for them to be moved (see WP:AFDHOWTO). If this page hadn't recently been at AfD, I'd have moved it myself to the appropriate namespace (WP:SNOW may apply but it still might be appropriate to note this at MfD). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the listing process for the page. Anything else can be addressed at the MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user Umair Aj is been harrasing me since several days. My first encounter with them was when they were promoting Pakistani singers on the article of singing. Since then they are following me and are deleting my contributions and removing well sourced contents and references. And mass tagging Afd on my reliably sourced articles please do something. User was previously blocked for sockpuppeting, Please see the users sockpuppeting investigations Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is really surprising. I just edited Arjit Singh as per impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking, and overuse of quotes but being a fan of Arjit Singh, User:Anoptimistix felt offended. I invited him on the talk page of Arjit Sigh to resolve the issue and also requested the admin to raise the protection level of the article as User:Anoptimistix was persistently adding promotional material which was also removed by other editors. Last but not the least proposing an article for deletion which fails WP:RS is not a harassment.-Umair Aj (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but you've been blocked for using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny before. Are you saying you didn't do that? -- Begoon 13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can report me for sockpuppeting but are you saying that under discussion issue is not per the guidelines or is there any violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm asking a simple yes/no question. You can respond either way, not at all, or anything inbetween. That's entirely up to you. -- Begoon 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should restrict ourselves to impartiality of tone, undue weight and peacocking which is obviously removed by me.-Umair Aj (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question: Why don't you want to answer the above question? -- Begoon 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are also avoiding my question. Is there any violation of policy on my part?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's what my questions were hoping to establish. At a guess, yes, you've got "POV sock" written all over you, but I won't make the judgement. -- Begoon 13:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't guess because he who guesses always creates impediments. My question is simple, removing promotional material/proposing deletion is a violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"he who guesses always creates impediments". Thank you. I collect bizarre stuff like that. Today I saw on some packaging: "MSG has not been invited". I'm indebted. Have a nice day. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. From your questions it is pretty obvious that you are indeed a collector of bizarre stuff like this I'm "getting at" nothing. You also have a nice day. By the way you did not answer my question?-Umair Aj (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: Begoon, I believe Umair Aj's confusion (and my own) is about the relevance of your line of questioning about his use of multiple accounts. He received a ban for it almost two years ago, there's no indication he's done it since, there's no suggestion he's done it recently, and he hasn't claimed that he was innocent of the first offence. What are you getting at? Cjhard (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should have been an easy question. I'm "getting at" nothing. Thanks for turning up. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umair Aj were persistently deleting references and contents from the article of Singh for which I reported them at WP:ANEW. Further they were intentionally misinterpreting peacocking, as the guide says only unattributed contents are peacocking and also misinterpreted MOS:Quote and violated Original wording policy by removing direct quotes. Administrator CambridgeBayWeather restored the content.Umair Aj wanted to deceive other users that I am not interested in the discussion by not pinging me on the talk page of Singh, and were using uncivil language while interacting me on my talk page. Further they were stalking my contributions history to wait for an opportunity to take my newly created articles for Afd. The sockpuppet user might also use multiple accounts in past and future to harass other users if not restricted now. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the following songs by Arjit Singh. It will be clear that Anoptimistix is a fan and doing promotional stunts. "Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga", "Uska Hi Banana", "Aayat", "Raabta", "Ae Dil Hai Mushkil", "Muskurane", "Laal Ishq", "Kabhi Jo Baadal Barse", "Samjhawan", "Suno Na Sangemarmar", "Ilahi", "Sooraj Dooba Hain", "Sanam Re", "Soch Na Sake", "Mast Magan", "Bolna", "Sawan Aaya Hai", "Gerua", "Janam Janam", "Nashe Si Chadh Gayi", "Khamoshiyan", "Hamari Adhuri Kahani", "Enna Sona", "Dilliwaali Girlfriend", "Palat", "Dharkhaast", "Kabira", "Zaalima", "Yeh Ishq Hai", "Alvida", "Baatein Ye Kabhi Na". This user also used IP addresses to add promotional material.-Umair Aj (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anoptimistix: Show me the evidence, where I used IP address. Many of the song's article like "Sooraj Dooba Hain, Man Mast Magan, Suno Na Sangemarmar, Kabira, Samjhawan we're not mine, neither I edited it. I have created many articles about many topics, I am also a music lover I frequent creates notable songs article with reliable references, which are quite popular in India. If you have any problem with music or songs sung by Singh or dislike them., then I cannot do anything to change your taste. I have started many articles according to policies and guidelines backed by Reliable sources. Started songs articles are not crime. Further most of them are not indexed by search engines as pirated and unpirated files are indexed, so your doubts about promotion should be clear. These songs articles which I started had been used by many editors for inlinking purposes.

Umair Aj is attempting to divert the discussion, as they have been reported many times for sockpuppeting, vandalism, edit warring, the user neither neither creates contents , nor adds contents in existing articles. Their only job is to damage the articles and harrass users. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history page of IP 99.53.112.186. A number of IPs within the same range are vandalizing this IP. I've blocked three. I think they are a government server in France. Anyway, they're targeting one IP. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were initially targeting user:Lomita, but turned on me when I started to intervene. If you look at user:Lomita, you will see that this vandal has been around for at least a week. If you do a range block, there will be multiple ranges to cover. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice at User Lomita that actually left an edit summary with a profanity meant for you. Per admin below, would you like me to semi-protect your talk page? If so, how long? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite an extreme range block to perform, but possible (with 16 separate range blocks) at a real push, and not for any real length of time. It's about a million IP addresses - semi-protection seems the better option here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want my talkpage semi-protected, otherwise, I could not edit it. However, I already added a semi-protection request for user talk:Lomita. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate that, if it's a choice of semi-protecting your talk page, a /12 range block, or expiry from extreme boredom, then your opinion will have been counted but your talk page is likely to be getting locked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay if you can't do a range block, but I do not want my talkpage getting protected. I would rather put up with these socks targetting me than not be able to edit my own talkpage.99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at how weird the ranges are. I'm pretty sure the first one I opened showed the French government. Some of them now say it's the United States government. And one of them comes up rather international, the US government, the Canadian government, UK Parliament, and the Wimedia Foundation ... all rolled into a range for one IP 37.169.66.131. Spooky stuff. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds suspiciously like the sensitive IP list. I figure all this range comes from Free Mobile, in France. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your action - --Lomita (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceruss (talk · contribs) has engaged in an eight-month edit war on Rudy_Giuliani. By my count, Aceruss has made 28 edits reverted by seven editors (MShabazz, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, Oshwah, General Ization, Bbb23, and WikiDan61) in this article. The editor has also made similar changes to: Crime_in_New_York_City, Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani, David_Dinkins, History_of_New_York_City_(1978–present) with additional reverts by additional editors. All of these edits are variations of the same subject; which I won’t bother describing since this filing is about a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. Very few of these edits were preceded by any attempt at gaining consensus and no consensus for these changes exists. A sampling of diffs: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137].

The user’s talk page includes nine related warnings for edit warring, disruptive editing and vandalism. I believe the article is under discretionary sanctions and may also be in AE’s bailiwick. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user apparently doesn't get it & shows no indication that he or she will make any attempt to understand how we do things here.Joefromrandb (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree that this constitutes edit warring as the user is repeatedly reverting changes to these articles and in-place of engaging in proper dispute resolution practices - that's what defines the spirit of the policy. There are discretionary sanctions imposed for many of the articles this user has been edit warring over. Given the number of times that this user has been warned for edit warring, as well as the notice left informing the user of discretionary sanctions applied (diff), I'm prepared to apply a topic ban for this user from editing any pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This won't fix the issue of the edit warring behavior in its complete entirety, but it'll at least start by placing sanctions and keeping problematic edits out of this topic area. Are there any objections? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to cover virtually all of the problem editing thus far. Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to respond. There are two or three editors who act like they own the Rudy Giuliani page. They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. There have been several other editors who have said my edits should stand. I am simply adding facts and balance with very reliable sources. I have used the talk page extensively as you can see and been very friendly to all, and been met by insults, threats, reverts and other unpleasantries in return from these two or three editors. Let me get to the heart of the matter here and then I will answer any questions you have for me.

In October 2013, David Dinkins autobiography was published. In it he proclaimed he is the greatest crime fighter NYC has ever known. The next day editor PK800 started making edits on at least seven Wikipedia pages about these effusive uncorroborated claims. He was reverted multiple times and many editors spoke out against what he was doing, including Malik Shabazz. (see David Dinkins talk page). No one spoke in his favor. Yet he just kept re-reverting until others grew tired of this. Fast forward to NOV 2016 when I started editing. They did not welcome the newcomer, they chewed my head off.

PK800 only used the talk page on one of his seven plus pages he put these claims on, the David Dinkins page. He achieved no consensus at all. The only source that says "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" and other effusive claims is Dinkins autobiography.

I and other editors put up literally dozens of RS: NY times, NY magazine, NY post, Time magazine etc all contradicting this autobiography. They never argue facts! They just revert and threaten.

Here are two examples of what these guys are doing:

1) page: David Dinkins I made an edit on 7-31-17 and stated the fact that the source does not say "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" which it doesn't- it doesn't even mention Dinkins name once! see for yourself. Malik Shabazz reverted saying "it's what the source says"

2)I added to page Rudy Giuliani the fact with solid RS that crime went up to record levels during Dinkins administration, yes it did go down some from that point at the end of his term which I left in. Objective3000 and Malik Shabazz continually revert my factual well sourced edits, which are balanced and add proper context.

3) I have asked them both, why must PK800s edits with zero consensus, and corroborated only by Dinkins effusive factually incorrect autobiography stand as the only edit permissible?

Why are my well sourced factual edits constantly reverted entirely mainly by these two editors?

Thank you, I have more to say but will wait to hear from you, I have never been through this process before and look very much forward to clearing the air here.Aceruss (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceruss, do you understand what edit warring is? Yes or no? --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to respond to this unless someone thinks I should. I think the diffs and warnings from many editors speak to the issue. Besides, to be fair, there are worse outcomes than a Tban, and the editor may not realize the dangers in using a shovel here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the user doesn't understand what edit warring is, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and educate him instead of throwing a topic ban at him. This would be much more beneficial for everyone if resolving this issue is as simple as that... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I bow to anyone that is willing to take time to educate. But, the editor has got to learn to stop making unproductive comments like: They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. That and most of what was posted above by the editor is simply false. And the heart of problem may be that the editor doesn’t know it’s false. I may be overanalyzing and leave it to more experienced editors. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PK800s edits had no consensus at all. Why must his edits be considered untouchable? Look at the disputes he got in long before I was around on the David Dinkins page. NO ONE agreed with him. Do we care about well sourced facts at all?Aceruss (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceruss - I understand that you have disputes and disagreements with some of the content added to these articles, but reverting these changes in a repeated back-and-fourth manner is not how to go about properly resolving them. Have you started discussions on the articles' talk pages with your concerns and pinged those involved so that they can comment and discuss it with you? Have you worked with them to come to a consensus with what the content should be changed to? These are some of the different parts of proper dispute resolution practices - things that you should do in order to properly sort out any disagreements. If you engage in repeated back-and-fourth reverting of content in articles as you've been doing (the diffs provided here clearly show this), and in place of following the processes outlined in the dispute resolution guideline, it's considered edit warring - which is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Although there is a policy that serves a rule to judge what would be undoubtedly considered a violation of the edit warring policy, there is no time constraint or "rate limit" in principle; if you're repeatedly reverting others' changes on the article instead of following the dispute resolution guideline, you're engaging in edit warring. That's the best way to explain how this policy works.

My honest goal here is to resolve this ANI discussion without having to resort to any sanctions or other actions; I really want to be able to close this discussion knowing that simply explaining this policy to you was all that was needed, but I need your acknowledgment that you understand these policies and what I've explained, and I need your commitment to discuss these disputes properly and no longer engage in any more edit warring. Can I trust that you understand these policies and that you'll follow them without allowing further incidents and disruption to occur? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know PK800. But, I have to respond to this. I may be wrong, but the edit by PK800 that Acerrus refers to was three years ago and was removed quite a while back from the Giuliani article. Continuing references to this makes no sense. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is something we can do. I have noticed on all modern NYC mayors articles (1965-present) there is absolutely no reference (not counting election results) to any other mayors accomplishments, good or bad, except all these Dinkins comments on Giuliani's pages put in by PK800. How about restoring the paragraph's relating to crime on Rudy Giuliani and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and the Giuliani section on Crime in NYC back to their pre-PK800 readings (basically eliminating any Dinkins edits good or bad) and I posted my suggestions on David Dinkins page, but will leave that page for others to decide how to proceed there and if agreed I will also not edit the Giuliani sections in question for at least a year, we can all move on to other things, catch a breath, perhaps collaborate (or not) on other topics. Sound reasonable?Aceruss (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah thanks for responding. There is something missing here. Have you taken a look at the Rudy Giuliani talk page? I might have used up too much Wikipedia bandwidth using it. Yes, I have. And the two or three of them will not allow ANYTHING to be changed on that page. And I am not reverting others changes they are reverting mine. I almost never revert an editors good faith edits wholly. I argue a point or two and we work it out to improve Wikipedia. I have done this on many other pages. I have educated myself on all Wikipedia guidelines. I follow them. These guys make up there own rules and gang up on me.

1)is it not a rule to not bite the newcomers, they did to me 2)is it not a rule to argue the central point and not name call- they dont argue any points or facts they just threaten me and insult me 3) is it not a policy to assume good faith-they NEVER do to me 4)is it not a guideline to not give a significant/ insignificant minority viewpoint undue weight? A clear majority viewpoint is Giuliani lowered crime in NYC yet they treat any mention of it like a fringe theory 5) They use an auto-biography as their RS I use a ton of solid RS and they say theirs takes precedence 6)How about Grahams hierarchy of disagreement they are always in the bottom 2 or 3 never at the top refuting the central point 7)The statement Dinkins lowered crime more than anyone else in history is a complete falsehood. If I put Giuliani lowered crime more than anyone else in history (much closer to the truth) they would erase it in one minute 8) many other editors have supported me and as I said many said the same things against these guys before I arrived

So yes I am trying to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. But these 3 editors are making up their own rules.Aceruss (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceruss, you have not yet let us know that you understand what edit warring is or that you understand that edit warring is not allowed. Most importantly, you have not made a commitment to refrain from edit warring behavior in the future. This is troubling. You accuse other editors of making their own rules, yet you have so far failed to convince anyone that you understand this essential rule. Please explain your understanding of edit warring and your personal commitment to avoiding it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could've reported this to SPI instead or perhaps to AIV, but I seem to notice a similar pattern here and here. Both use what I presume to be either a real name or perhaps a pseudonym, and both user's editing patterns seem to match up, i.e. jacking an existing article and replacing its contents with a vanity page either in Tagalog or broken English. Could it be just a coincidence or do I smell something fishier? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS has been entered into an edit war to retaliate against me for posting on a his friend's web page.

First some background:

From, back last January: "You can expect people you've had content disagreements with, like LynnWysong to be just as disruptive as they were last time." he apparently holds a grudge against me for my actions in Montanabw's last RfA.

And, when in my frustration over MBW's lack of any real effort to engage on the talk page of an article, I posted on her talk page for the first time in almost 18 months. Upon seeing this, RexxS went over to the article in question, one that he has never edited before, and reverted my edits. I went to his talk page, and [139] called him on it. Instead of responding to me there, he wiped off my post, and ran over to my talk page, and tried to justify his initiation of an edit war basically admitting that had done it to retaliate. I tried moving the discussion back to his talk page, but he just deleted it. I then asked him that, since he had made it clear that his only reason for reverting my edit was too retaliate, would he please reverse his reversion. He wiped that off his talk page, and came over to mine and accused me of trolling, at which point I told him that any more retaliatory edits would force me to bring the matter here.

I then let things cool off for several hours when I went back to the talk page, copied over my statements from MBW's talk page as she had requested, and reversed RexxS's reversion. Within two hours, he came back on, again reverted me accusing me of edit warring, and tried to make the case that the problematic paragraph I had identified earlier "was far superior". I replaced the problematic paragraph, telling him that, if he wanted to contribute constructively, he should address the issues I had brought up several weeks prior instead of escalating an edit war and possibly tag-teaming. He again reverted, and just repeated his statement that the paragraph "is superior" and accusing me of imposing my "own POV."

As I stated on my first (first ever!) post on RexxS's web page, the only time I interact with him is when he feels the need to defend MBW, an editor which I'm sure most people agree is capable of taking care of herself, when I am in conflict with her. The first time was here, when he felt the need to come on my talk page for the first time, to chide me for doing what he had invited me to do. I can only guess what his motives are in escalating this situation the way he is, but I ask that he be told to back off. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that RexxS violated the 3RR rule, his second reversion coming 13 hours after his first, and his third coming less than four hours after that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic note—I have no horse (so to speak) in this race as I know nothing about horses and care less, but since RexxS has only ever edited the page three times then by definition it's impossible for him to have breached WP:3RR. ‑ Iridescent 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that. Figured he would be smarter than that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another pedantic note: If you are reverted, you don't revert back (unless in a case of clear vandalism), but YOU use the talk page, please. WP:BRD is a smart guideline, meant to de-escalate. Be smart and follow it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerta for your input, but please read more carefully, especially before you make condescending statements telling me to "be smart". As I had stated, I was using the talk page, but, after several weeks, did not get a constructive response. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out, for all you BRD lovers out there, that I find that guideline to frequently abused, by editors that revert, then either disappear rather than engage, or if they do engage, do so in filibuster type manner just to try to get the other editor to give up and go away. So no, much of the time, following is NOT very smart. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the basic dispute has been going on since 3 June, so to some extent, all concerned parties would appear to have been disappearing on and off without subsequent engagement. — fortunavelut luna 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why would I edit if I thought the article was okay? The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk. But, this is not about what took place befor RexxS came on the scene. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk." Seems to me, in passing, that the "taking it to talk" might profitably come a little earlier than that. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but in retrospect, the experience just reinforced my previous ones with BRD, which is why I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. But, that's not at issue here. Please tell me what you think about what RexxS is doing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Rexx is doing? "Reverting changes which have not gained consensus on the article talk page" is not going to get him a slap on the wrist while he abides by 3rr. Especially since other editors also disagree with your contributions. If you mean "going to an article he hasn't edited before after seeing a dispute on a page he watches" - that's also unlikely to get him more than a finger-wag. Part of the eventual dispute resolution process is seeking third opinions from elsewhere. Think of this as a short-cut. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go back months into the article to try to show which changes did not have consensus-but I'm not accepting your interpretation of the situation that it was mine that didn't. So, trying to let him off the hook but twisting the situation like that is not going to fly. But the bottom line is, his behavior regardless is unacceptable-at least in a community that plays by grown-up rules, which, I would hope would be the case here, if not elsewhere on the project. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well ultimately if you are not going to, no one else is either. From a quick skim of the last month of revisions on that article, its clear content has been disputed by multiple parties, of which Rexx is merely the latest to engage. Which means consensus is required on the talkpage. Complaining because someone *else* disagrees with you when they have neither broken or even bent Wikipedia policy is not going to go anywhere over a petty content dispute. Even a cursory glance of the above responses should indicate to you by now that Rexx is not likely to get sanctioned or even a formal warning. If your goal is meaningful resolution to the conflict, I suggest you to take it to the article talk page. If your goal is to remove one of the parties to the dispute, you will need far more evidence of disruption than you have provided so far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. Lynn, you should probably reconsider that part of your approach. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 15:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) If the other editor does not engage then BRD has worked not failed. You open a discussion, wait for the other editor to engage and when no one does so, you're fully entitled with the realms of BRD to revert back. If you've opened a discussion, you come out looking a lot better than if you did not do so. In fact, when you fail to do so because you think you tthink the other editor is not going to properly engage, you're basicallly guilty of WP:Assuming bad faith. All in all, it doesn't help your case in any way. Even if the editor actually reverts again without discussing, while this is not necessarily an excuse to revert back, it does generally mean you're heading towards the stage where you can legitimate ask for an edit warring block because the editor keeps making the change without discussion when you yourself have made attempts to discuss.

As for "filibustering" well first one persons filibuster is another person's fair discussion. More importantly, if a person is going to filibuster they're going to filibuster. By you actually opening the discussion you've demonstrated good faith and you can use some form of dispute resolution which is much more likely to be favourable to you when you've actually made a good attempt to discuss. OTOH if you get into a revert war, what's likely to happen is both of you will be blocked and no one will give a damn about the dispute because all they see are two idiots who don't know how to collobrate via discussion.

Finally, it's intrisic on both sides to discuss and yes this includes initiating a discussion. If you come to ANI to complain, no matter whether you may say it's about WP:Hounding or revenge or whatever, you've automatically harmed your case by failing to initiate discussion. Actually many of us automatically ignore most cases where someone comes to complain about another editor's behaviour but has not actually initiated discussion themselves.

In fact, it's even worse if it's a BRD type situation, and you reverted a second time rather than initating discussion and the other party then initiated discussion. Since while arguably a person should initiate discussion straight after reverting the first time (provided there seems to be a legitimate content dispute and not an error, vandalism etc), it's definitely clear that a person reverting a second time by themselves should initiate discussion generally before reversion. Since the behaviour of everyone involved may be inspected when you come to ANI, you should expect that your failings are going to harm your case, no matter if you feel, even if justifiably, that they are irrelevant. Let alone where they aren't actually irrelevant. Yes as I said earlier, it's still intrinsic on each party to initiate discussion, so both parties are going to come out looking bad if they keep reverting without discussion in a BRD type situation it comes down faster on the party in the B corner even if their failure to initiate discussion before reversion isn't generally a good reason to revert again before discussion has takenn place.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would you call refusing to address specific criticisms on a paragraph, instead just flippantly saying in one's opinion, "it's superior". Sounds like filibustering to me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the case here. I had initiated discussion weeks prior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert your comments into the middle of my sign comment, it's unnecessarily confusing. Incidentally, I have no real interest in discussing this further. I have particularly no interested in analysing the details of whether something is or isn't filibustering other than to say I think you've misunderstood my main point. Whether something is filibustering is often going to be disputed but even if there is unanimous agreement it is, there's also going to be almost unanimous agreement that this doesn't excuse someone failing to initiate discussion, especially since there is no way to reliably predict how the discussion will evolve. Also precisely what time this happened is mostly besides the point. BRD means bold, revert, discuss. So making a bold edit may be fine, but if someone reverts then you discuss. If you were bold and were reverted weeks prior then you should have discussed weeks prior before you reverted again weeks prior. The fact you failed to initiate a discussion before reverting again weeks prior is never going to come out in your favour even if you did later initiate a discussion after the second revert. (Actually initiating the discussion is a positive but it doesn't excuse the initial failure. And it's even less justifiable when your reason for failing to do so appears to be because of a poorly thought out rejection of BRD.) As I already said, I'm not particularly interest in he precise detaisl in time frames involved, I'm more concerned about your dismissive attitude towards BRD and have tried to emphasise why it's both harmful to wikipedia, and harmful to your editing for you to fail to observed it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm still fairly confused and can't be bothered clarifying the precise time frames involved, I'll emphasise another point I already made. If you initiate a discussion and receive no reply, after a while it's usually fair to reinstate the change with an appropriate edit summary (e.g. "No objections to talk page comments so assuming consensus"). But once someone has reverted the change again, having initiated the discussion and failing to receive a response isn't generally an excuse to straight away reinstate the change again. Instead you need to give time for the person to respond on the talk page and you then need to participate in the discussion. Yes it's annoying when you've waited and received no response but it's easily possible someone just missed the talk page discussion. In this sort of case you'll probably be perceived less harshly than if you had taken ages to initiate a discussion but it's still no excuse to keep trying to force the change through despite their being objections on the talk page. (And again this is regardless of how long it took these objections to come up.) Remember that WP:Consensus should always be the goal, and there are plenty of options for dispute resolution if you get stuck. And ultimately even if not viewed so harshly, the fact of the matter is trying to force through a change despite objections even if you've already waited and the objections only came after the first justifiable reintroduction is still not going to be seen positively, especially when you display a dismissive attitude towards BRD. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just as a quick comment, I haven't looked into the actual dispute. Also one thing I forgot to emphasise is it's easily possibly a person will quickly come round to your side during discussion. Ideally revert wars shouldn't actually harm that, but in reality human nature likely means in some cases if you only get around to making your points after the person has gotten annoyed with you for continuing to revert, they're going to be less willing to come round to your POV. In other words, BRD is recommended for good reason. By failing to observe it, very often you're harming your goal, not helping it. This is a colloborate project which means discussion is a key part of participating. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, when LynnWysong posts complaints about content issues on another editor's talk page, then she really ought to expect talk page watchers to notice, especially when she announces "I am reverting back". That piqued my interest and I looked at the current state of the article and its talk page, where LynnWysong had not replied to the points made by Montanabw (whose talk page she had posted on). She has now gutted the introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies four times [140], [141], [142], [143] against the objections of both Montanabw and myself (although only the last three were within 24 hours). This kind of battle-field mentality and forcible change through edit-warring ought not to be rewarded. I have consistently asked LynnWysong to engage on the talk page to seek some kind of consensus, with little success. From her comments there, it seems to me that her stance on the article is "my way or the highway", and I'm not at all keen to see that gain sway as a means for article change. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what planet would one have to live to think that I was not engaging on the talk page????? I wrote a specific set of criticisms of the material I reverted on July 9, only to be reverted three weeks later with vague implications of POV pushing and edit warring. I referred you to those criticisms, which you ignored. The points you are saying were made by Montanabw were made by ME! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gerda Arendt: and @LynnWysong: (pinging LynnWysong second because they may merely have been misled by earlier comments in this discussion) please take note of the fact that, contrary to your comments above, WP:BRD is just as much not a guideline as WP:CIR is not. Please avoid referring to it as such, in order to avoid confusion. MPS1992 (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Sorry to confuse you, and to concern you with my dismissive attitude towards BRD. But it is not a guideline, merely a suggestion. When it works, great. When it doesn't work, it shouldn't be used to hammer someone. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: And, just a polite suggestion, when you are making a multipoint criticism of someone, maybe you should sign after each paragraph. Makes it much easier for someone to defend themselves. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my sloppy way of using the term "guideline" in a broader sense: I mean it as a good model for behaviour that prevents escalation. I live well on a voluntary 1RR, sometimes even stick to 0RR, and can recommend to try it: when you are reverted, don't change the article but go to the talk page and find consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I don't like BRD is because reverting is basically a hostile act, especially after someone is told to be bold. Much more collaborative to ping the editor first, and tell them you have problems with their edits. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"reverting is basically a hostile act". That's an attitude you'll want to drop if you want to avoid disputes like these in the future. Cjhard (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it finally comes out here, @RexxS: read my comment on Montanabw's talk page, came over the article talk page, and through careless reading of the talk page, assumed that Montanabw had made the points that I had made, and to which in three weeks she had not responded to but simply reverted my edits and made a quick response implying that the issues were with my POV and sourcing issues (Yeah, right, BRD just works great). He then took up "her" cause, thinking that it was I, not her, that was gutting the lead paragraph, and kept reverting to the "gutted" version, saying it was the "superior" version. This is what happens when people just jump in is situations in which they have no history to defend their "friend", and really don't care enough to be sure that said friend is in the right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does come out, LynnWysong, but in your haste to battle, you never bothered to read properly, did you? I never said anything about the lead. My complaint is about you gutting the first paragraph of the Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies section as anyone can verify by reading my comment above, and my comment on the talk page: "The section on Land use controversies contains several themes: how free-roaming horses are viewed by the interested parties; the nature and extent of problems arising; and how management might solve those problems. I believe that the version with six paragraphs has a far superior introduction, which sets the scene for the rest of the section and the themes it encompasses. Without that introduction, the alternate, shorter, three-paragraph version seems to me to flit from one idea to another in a less structured way, which is confusing for the reader. I see no reason for an edit war to force one editor's preferred version over one that is easier to comprehend." (RexxS) Here are the four diffs again of you removing that content: [144], [145], [146], [147]. You have made no attempt to address either Montanabw's comments nor mine, beyond your misreading of the point I made: "I disgree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it." (LynnWysong). And that sums up your behaviour. You didn't bother to properly read what I wrote; you jumped to a mistaken conclusion, and decided that you knew best, so reverted back to your preferred version of the article as your natural reaction. You're an edit-warrior who is disappointed at not getting your own way, and are now trying to smear all of the folks who don't agree with you. Perhaps it's time you read WP:BOOMERANG? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, could you please tell me what Montanabw's comments are? Oh - and I concede to your minor point. You did say "introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies " and I replaced it with "lead", but <edit> obviously <end edit> meaning the same paragraph <edit> since that is the one I replaced <end edit>. Now, just what were Montanabw's comments? Please copy and paste them here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I forgot to ping you on my last question. And, since I don't want to keep everyone in suspense, here's a dif to Montanabw's only edit to the talk page since 2015: [148] The one I responded to on her talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing actionable here. No 3RR was breached. This is so far some sort of content dispute that was inappropriately discussed on a usertalk page and someone else saw it. There's no evidence of longterm behavioral problem in the reported editor. Please keep all content discussions on article talk and nowhere else. Utilize WP:DR and/or WP:ANEW as necessary. Trout or boomerang the OP for wasting everyone's time over a single run-of-the-mill everyday occurrence; no breach of policy. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party here, but in a nutshell, I am really appalled that LynnWysong (SLW) has chosen to go after RexxS, who is well-respected across Wikipedia for his level head and insightful commentary. I can state unequivocally that I did not ask RexxS to look into this particular article nor to intervene on my behalf. SLW brought this one upon herself by posting an attack at my talkpage, and in doing so alerted my 300-and-some talk page watchers to the issue. I agree with Softlavender that the complaint here should be closed. RexxS did nothing wrong, and in fact attempted to bring the article in question into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've been working on the article about Ford & Lopatin's album Channel Pressure. This has included adding a fair amount of essential analysis and opinions about the record for reliable sources to showcase the album as great as possible, not too much unlike other high-quality album articles like 21, Revival, and this featured article about a record by The xx. However, a user named gentlecollapse6, who I've seen also work on a fair amount of Daniel Lopatin-related articles, has kept turning my edits into short, weak general summaries, removing numerous essential and useful facts about the records for invalid, absurd, and non-guideline-related reasons such as, in his words, "overzealous fan sticking his interests in the face of everyone else," "ridiculous and annoying," "geeky fan page," "nerdy detail vomit," and "it's an article on a cool, slightly obscure side project that you've now made totally un-obscure by wringing every piece of writing you could find on it, thereby misrepresenting its scholarly significance in general." Not that I mind the WP:UNCIVIL tone of what's he saying that much (heck, I've been guilty of that, before) but it's very clear he's trying to change the article how he personally thinks the article should be rather than how album articles should work based on how a normal and experienced Wikipedian would view the quality of an article. I'm really not seeing what he's trying to go for with not having an article "compile every possible written fact about relatively obscure subject." I think an article should cover all minor but essential viewpoints about a subject no matter how "obscure" it is. My addition and expansion of information to the article is like how any other high-quality article is detailed, and gentlecollapse6 needs to understand that information from independent will not be removed just because he thinks it's "geeky" and "vomit." He's also shortened the lead too much and even has gone as so far as to make an entire section into a small note citation because he thinks it unimportant...... not even joking. These are not productive edits this user is doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, the article is absolutely fine as it is now. EditorE has made some valuable additions but generally gets carried away, to the point of including remarkably over-detailed track-by-track analyses noting every individual influence and element of the tracks in addition to a separate music and composition section (the former of which I've moved to a note so as not to delete all EdE's work—the latter #music section summarizes it all quite well), largely cribbed from the artists' own track-by-track interview article, of an album that has no more than 14 professional critic reviews total to date. That's excessive, and makes the page look like an inaccessible mess.

Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise editorial judgement about when some information is too much information—when information is too specialized for a given topic relative to its scholarly noteworthiness, and when an influx of gushing detail threatens to betray the neutral, encyclopedic tone of Wiki. The Encyclopedia Brittanica sure wouldn't have a separate 600-word track-by-track analysis for its entry of an obscure album that didn't chart, was met with lukewarm reception, and hasn't been shown to be a particular influence on any larger cultural developments. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that I understand that Gentlecollapse6 has good intentions in what he's doing and he's not a bad user, I just feel he's taking the not-too-inaccessible guideline a little too seriously, which is why I've started this discussion. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic content dispute that should be resolved through discussion at Talk:Channel Pressure, or through dispute resolution. I see neither a request for administrative action nor anything requiring administrative action at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]