text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965

Personal attack by EEng
has made several personal attacks in a rather heated discussion at wt:Talk page guidelines.

Their behaviour on that talk page was previously discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964, but that notification was vague as to the problem and there seemed to be no attempt to discuss on user talk pages, and was rightly closed as no trouble found.

But please can someone look specifically at this edit which ironically looks back to that previous ANI discussion. I find the question Are you never going to get a clue? offensive and uncalled for, and in violation of WP:NPA and wp:civility.

I have attempted to discuss this at User talk:EEng, and the response seems to be that there's nothing wrong with the edit in question.

So I'd like other opinions on this. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'd say EEng's original comment is a 3/10 on the "unnecessarily annoying to other people" scale. His suggestion you bring it here is a 4/10, because it's a waste of other people's time and he knows it. I'd say your actually bringing it here is a 5/10 on the same UATOP scale. Or maybe a 4/10, to match EEng's suggestion you do so. Is that the kind of feedback you're looking for? You really need to not sweat the small stuff; not every minor instance of unfriendliness needs to be escalated.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for the feedback, although obviously not the answer I was hoping for! You haven't actually said whether EEng's comment violates WP:NPA and wp:civility, but I guess you think that the answer to that question doesn't really matter here, is that a fair statement? Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really the right admin to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's more useful to think of NPA and CIVIL as a continuum, rather than a good/bad dichotomy. Not every unfriendly statement needs to be classified as "good" or "bad", "acceptable" or "violation", "praiseworthy" or "blockworthy". The harsher the comment, and the more frequent the comment, the worse it is. I sometimes use a speed limit analogy.  IMHO you're asking "is going 37 in a 35 zone a traffic violation"? It seems like a yes/no question, but it isn't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Get a clue" is a personal attack in the same sense that I am a shoe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying "get a clue" to someone is calling them clueless because, if they're not clueless, why do they need to get a clue? There's been a lot of this completely ridiculous parsing of people's insults and attacks, where calling you an idiot is a violation but calling your edits idiotic or asking you to stop acting idiotically is a good way to constructively collaborate. It's so counterintuitive but there are editors who will fight to the death for the right to passive-aggressively call people dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey IP: Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing, and neither one is even remotely the same thing as calling someone a dickhead. This is the sort of stuff my 4 year old could explain to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing." I never said they were but nice try. Because while describing someone with either is a violation of the policy against insulting people, the first (i.e., "get a clue") is passive-aggressive cowardice while at least the second (i.e., "you're clueless") is blatant. That's the only difference. Both are attacks, both are ways of telling someone you think they're a dickhead, and neither is how you address someone who you think you can collaborate with in your efforts to improve things, which is supposed to include everybody but vandals. Hell will freeze over before you admit you were wrong, which you are, so I need to be careful not to fall into the trap of arguing with the sort of person who drags their child (?!?) into their efforts to defend treating people like dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * EEng and I have some history regarding civility, and while I think he could use to get a clue himself as to when his levity enriches a discussion versus when it's disruptively offensive, nothing reported in this thread came close to that admittedly blurry line. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also a number of editors for whom typing "EEng" on this board is like a dog whistle, to which they respond by showing up often well after the situation has been largely resolved to cause more dramah. Such is the case here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Implying other editors are dogs sounds like a personal attack. Shall we escalate?  E Eng  17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Can I ask you to stop being so damn sensitive, or is that going to be reported as a personal attack like this nonsense? — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And may-be you could also altogether do better to de-escalate situations, than posting these type of comments every here and there and build up the usual drama-fest.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the lecture where it's my responsibility to entertain nonsense reports such as this. Your comments—yet again—do nothing but derail. Perhaps you should take some of your own oft-unwanted advice? — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I too don't see anything even in the blurry zone.Echo Floquenbeam. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @EEng, to answer your original question, Obviously not. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pi page
I think the bot auto referenced the decimal conversion and it could be incorrect. Doing the calculation I get 3.1428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what specific content you're referring to. 3.1428 = 22/7, which is a well-known approximation of pi.  Could you please expand on your comments at Talk:Pi, assuming you're referring to content on Pi? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure of the context but 22/7 is 3.1429 not 3.1428 -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I believe this discussion is outside the sphere of ANI.  E Eng  22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean outside the circle right? Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just making me hungry. Mmmm, pi. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare
has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex ShihTalk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging for more information. Alex ShihTalk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex ShihTalk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation while the first one is being discussed at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Blocked - 4 days ago, edited Mark Herring, the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular this one) and which Instaurare was warned about by  less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, banned means banned, and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird JonBenet Ramsey vandalism?
I think there's some sort of template vandalism going on at Welcome to the N.H.K., but I can't tell where the problem is. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind. But here is some context. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's your problem. -- The Voidwalker  Whispers 03:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Gaditano23, warranting blocking (or to the very least admonishment)
Good afternoon, I'd like to show some light on what I deem very tendentious editing on behalf of User:Gaditano23 in this discussion page about the 2017 Catalonia attacks and in the article itself. He (his user name is masculine) has erased a perfectly objective and referenced paragraph. He had posed no objection to it two weeks earlier, but I know he did focus his attention on it, because he had to be corrected (by me) on a major mistake he made then (visible in the discussion, see his paragraph signed 08:33, 5 September 2017).

What I want to impress upon anyone reading this, is that this user is using potentially confrontational language and heavy political editorializing: he labels other users' sentences "silly", calls a Guardian article "idiotic" and like I said, erases a whole paragraph for what I deem to be subjective political reasons. In contrast, my discussion with User:Pincrete is perfectly civilized as can be seen in the talk page. Please read the version dated before 15 September, 16:20 because I don't know what will happen to the talk page

Tensions around the Catalan referendum are VERY high, this was already predicted, by me among others in said discussion days ago, but we all need to make an effort to be objective. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that Mr. Gaditano23 is here to build an encyclopedia. But I'd like to be proven wrong. I already have a couple referenced paragraphs prepared about this and more recent news uncovered by these investigative journalists, but first, with all due respect, the Gaditano23 question needs to be dealt with. What I'm not going to do is start an edit war with someone who is simply distraught at recent news. I'm here to build Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu We have not even engaged in a discussion, let alone an edit war!! This is not how you use ANIs. Also you should warn me on my talk page! Another editor had to warn me about this. Not cool.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I did warn you on your talk page seconds after writing the above User_talk:Gaditano23... Not the best way to start this discussion Gaditano! CodeInconnu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Gaditano has not done anything even REMOTELY sanctionable and this should be closed ASAP. Some non-Spanish/Catalan eyes (apart fom mine) would help as I think the 'Reactions' section of the article is in danger of going off-topic into matters of very marginal interest to non-local readers. I'm sure there are sources that praise the Catalan authorities and others that castigate them, I am not persuaded that there is any clear pattern yet as to which is going to prevail and whether it is going to influence the referendum AT ALL and how (if at all) that should be included in the 'attack article. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Pincrete, I mentioned you because you also appeared in that discussion but none of the relevant bits of THIS discussion involves you. Please let the administrators take care of this and refrain from chiming in and trying to divert their attention from the germane matters. Gaditano has used insulting language to refer to users' sentences and newspaper articles and it is clear to me and anyone reading his interventions that he was editorializing and using the talk page like a forum. Be thankful that I'm civil and I don't try to add that paragraph again to the main page until this is resolved, and please stay out of this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I see a content dispute, no conduct issues., except for very special cases one cannot dictate who may contribute to discussions here.  Tide  rolls  18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , calling paragraphs "silly" or references "idiotic" is as much of a conduct issue as it is content. Otherwise shall I start engaging in the same behaviour, see how that sits with Gaditano? CodeInconnu (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assessment is incorrect. Calling editors silly or idiotic is a conduct issue.  One would hope for an explanation for how the edits are silly or idiotic; that would certainly help the discussion.  Tide  rolls  18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So are you telling me that I can start labeling editors' contributions and references silly or idiotic compulsively like there's no tomorrow, and not be admonished by anyone? Is that your intelligent contribution to this debate?
 * Concerning your last sentence, totally agreed. Said explanation hasn't come yet (other than a haphazard reference to a potential "battefield", but Gaditano is more than welcome to offer his intelligent reasons before I add that paragraph again. So far no intelligent reasons have been offered. He may be nervous with the international scrutiny on Spain and all, but we're her to be impartial... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no debate; there has been no conduct displayed that requires admin attention.  Tide  rolls  18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * CodeInconnu, I am involved both because you named me and because I am actively 'watching' the page. I believe you are abusing the ANI process in that you have not really engaged on talk but come here hoping to get admin support, it won't happen. I largely agree with Gaditano and think the whole 'Reactions' section is going increasingly off-topic, so you are in the minority. You are welcome to do an RfC and I have tried above to invite other editors' eyes. You are new here, and have made very few edits outside this topic area, I believe. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, I don't think you've thought it carefully before writing this.
 * I didn't want to focus on you but now that you're begging for my attention, let me remind you that your entire discussion in that talk page was full of assumptions, weasel wording, opinions passed as facts and an intolerant adamancy that led me to believe that you either have a dog in this fight, or are not here to build an encyclopedia (neither is Gaditano). You're making assumptions here as well, e.g. presuming I'm here to curry favor (Tide Rolls says it's OK to label actions but not people, so I guess it's OK to label your assumption idiotic). Most importantly, you keep droning on about not mentioning the referendum but the one edit you left untouched was precisely the one referring to the referendum. Hence your edits have been not only disruptive, but also contradictory. And silly, idiotic, etc.
 * The fact I haven't made many edits outside of this topic could only be any of your business if I, or anyone else, owed you an explanation. Hang on, I don't. So there.
 * And finally, being new to a place is sometimes healthier than being old to/for it and losing perspective. When a person, generally speaking, mistakes a public domain for their own private fiefdom, it usually is a reflection of deeper issues that should be addressed face to face with people trained to deal with them. I'm not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So now three editors today have agreed that this material is off-topic and removed it. All of them are wrong according to you! Possibly more should be removed about the Sp/Cat tensions. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's been put on hold until the current political situation takes some shape. Just find some help and stop using wiki as an ad-hoc therapy please. There's better entertainment you can find at the care home. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Frustrated Wikicontrols makes legal threat out of ignorance
seems to have. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Their other conduct (edit-warring, personal attacks) was bad, too. GABgab 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've offered a comment correcting a couple of fundamental misunderstandings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Something strange
Hello, folks. I'm not certain that this is the correct place to report this and feel free to direct me elsewhere. But there's something very strange going on at WP:MOSQUOTE. Looks like the page got hijacked in some fashion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Looks like the CSS files could have been messed with, if so, this would be a hack, not just vandalistic editing, I suggest not clicking on the links in the messed up page in case they contain malware. Thanks for reporting this. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, it's been fixed now. On a related point, is there a good way to tell which template text comes from?  GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend this link which can be made on any Special:Contributions page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So if I understand this correctly, someone changed the template "vanchor" into a brightly colored attack page which was then displayed on any page that used the template? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So it seems. What I meant was that it would be useful to have a way to see what the wikitext would be if every template were substituted - with HTML comments showing which bits were from which templates.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am slowly but surely working on an off-site tool that would do that. Feel free to occasionally pester me to get back to work on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Range block?
Recently,, , , , and similar IPs beginning with 2602:306:33C5:1860 have been "spamming" gratutious mentions of a children's anthology called Sing a Song of Popcorn in a bunch of articles (as well as overlinking). It's pretty clear that all are the same person, and in some cases they have vioated 3RR. I know nothing about IP6s and little about range blocks, and I can't even figure out how to give a warning that would be seen. Would it be possible to block the person without undue collateral damage? Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI recent edits by this range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2602:306:33C5:1860::/64. They seem mostly unhelpful, and they have been rangeblocked in the past []. A /64 rangeblock would seem appropriate, as anything else will likely be useless. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for more information on this. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * He's been using 2602:306:33C5:1860::/64 all year.
 * Hoax pointed out by after a final warning given by  on a previous day. There are other talk pages with warnings.

 * Binksternet warned him on a different range, 2602:306:33C5:2C90::/64 last year many times. Another example. Also, this looks interesting.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, VCV comes to mind but you may recognize this as someone else?

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Was checking a couple of things before blocking but already indeffed for a week and that sounds like a good start.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for a week?? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! "...and I am unanimous in that..."
 * Blocked for one week is what I imagine Berean Hunter meant to say. It's a step up from the 31 hour block in July but if the disruptive editing resumes, longer blocks may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with (i.e., reverting all of its edits and warned) this vandal hoaxer before. I strongly agree with the recommendation of a range-block to stymie its efforts.  At the very least, if an IP's edit history contains any mention of "yakety yak," REVERT EVERYTHING, REVERT EVERYTHING.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to design an edit filter to look for "yakety yak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't talk back.  E Eng  01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP6 range under discussion certainly looks like a lot of it is the Voice Cast Vandal's handiwork. A week-long block is too short, in my opinion. In any case, the incorrigible person will find another inlet to continue the disruption here. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking. I also agree that a longer duration on the block is warranted. Judging by the anon contribs, it looks to be used fairly exclusively by him and no one else. Based on the length of time that he was at the last range and how long he has been at this one, I would expect his ISP to reassign him in early to mid January.

IPv6 Rangeblock Request - 2001:5b0:2a67:158:*
There's been My Little Pony related vandalism coming from this range (2001:5B0:2A67:158:*). They seem to insist on delinking Kingdom of Equestria for some reason (e.g.,, , , ). Requesting a rangeblock to stop this vandalism. Could also use a few page protections, but made requests at RPP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * blocked the active IP for 24 hours (thank you for that). Still requesting rangeblock though as this has been going on a few days. Clear vandalism/disruption.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2001:5B0:2A67:158::/64 blocked two weeks. Katietalk 01:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KrakatoaKatie. This can be closed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Junopolo
User:Junopolo is a promo only WP:SPA that User:Fuhghettaboutit and I have cleaned up after. They're now posting abuse on my talk instead of disclosing their presumed COI/paid as asked by both of us. Seems their WP:NOTHERE time should come to an end before they disrupt more. Widefox ; talk 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Already blocked: deus ex machina. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting formal interaction ban between myself and SwisterTwister
Since July, SwisterTwister was advised to stop interacting with me following an ANI discussion because of what both I and the nearly all editors who participated at the ANI saw as his deliberate targeting of my contributions. Unfortunately, he has failed to heed this advice and has recently resumed his wikihounding in the form of either removing tags with little explanation which makes it clear that he is "following" my contributions.

It appears that he is trying his best in some cases to be contrarian and obtuse: this is a classic case of his behaviour where he does not elaborate his concerns, merely stating "Inapplicable". One-off incident? Fine. On a regular basis? Not fine. Here's another case: the article Wrong time was tagged for G11 deletion by me and quickly reverted by SwisterTwister with what I can remember to be a wholly incoherent argument (I can't access the diff because I'm not an administrator) which is why I re-tagged it and was subsequently deleted by. Although this behaviour is primarily directed at me, he has done these kinds of things to other users e.g. this. A couple of pending cases can be seen in the histories of the pages currently AfD'd by me. He has, on occasion, reverted tags placed by me with a somewhat coherent edit summary (this and this. Administrators who can see both my and SwisterTwister's deleted contributions will be able to see a wealth of similar cases which have subsequently been deleted.

I haven't been perfectly behaved either: I was a bit snappy towards SwisterTwister at a AfD recently in response to his usage of ad hominem arguments, but I think this systematic harrassment needs to be stopped. Neither am I claiming that my history on speedy deletion is perfect, but things like thisSwisterTwister, this, this and this, none of which involve me, shows that SwisterTwister has at best a patchy track record in this area (note that one active Wikipedian has a topic ban on the usage of speedy deletion tags for similar, albeit much more widespread behaviour).

Recently, I put forward a proposal to limit the removal of speedy deletion tags to administrators in the hope that it would prevent SwisterTwister from further harrassing me. I really didn't want it to come to this but I'm afraid it's the only option left.

Therefore, I am requesting a formal two-way interaction ban between myself and SwisterTwister. If I had the strength and time to do so I think I could successfully argue for a one-way ban (from ST to me) but a "no blame" resolution would be quicker and cause fewer tears for everyone. SwisterTwister has made it clear that he doesn't want to enter into civil discussion on issues with me which is why I think this is a relatively uncontroversial request. I'm very rarely shaken by other people's conduct and I don't want to be high maintenance but SwisterTwister's behaviour which almost boomeranged him at the last ANI was what made me leave the AfC project (which I have recently re-joined), and I really don't want his subsequent behaviour to force me off the project altogether.

 Dr Strauss   talk   19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Filling in the blanks above: Wrong time was tagged A7/G11, SwisterTwister reverted the tag stating . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously no one wants to see you leave the project altogether, and if you believe this is the only option left, then I can only endorse it. If ST responds here agreeing to the above IBAN then I don't believe it needs any further discussion -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first example that you gave was this, which was perfectly correct. The article contained a reliable source that confirms that it was not a speedy deletion candidate. Why should any particular editor be prevented from protecting the encyclopedia from such clearly inapplicable deletion nominations? I have had my run-ins with SwisterTwister before, and have my own opinion about his general competence that I won't state here because it is irrelevant, but in this case he was perfectly correct. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying is that the edit summary "Inapplicable" without saying why, in conjunction with several other similar incidents, is unhelpful and testament to his general character on Wikipedia towards me and other users. I'm saying that this needs to stop now and an IBAN is the only way to do it.  I make mistakes all the time - this isn't a question of his competency, it's a question of his temperament.    Dr Strauss   talk   20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary "inapplicable" was one word more of explanation than you provided when tagging for speedy deletion. And, by the way, have you really read and understood the book source that was cited in that article as you claimed in the Afd discussion? Sorry, but there is a limit to good faith, because the evidence is clear that that statement was a lie. This thread is pretty obviously based on the fact that your incompetence has been exposed by your insistence on getting this article deleted rather than anything that SwisterTwister has done. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm incompetent at times: we all are. I've had my screw-ups with AutoWikiBrowser.  I've mistagged pages.  I have no problem owning up to them because I realise the benefits of honesty and I couldn't give a toss if ST was right on something and I was wrong.  This hasn't got anything to do with that AfD, it's about ST systematically stalking my contributions and targeting them, often incorrectly.    Dr Strauss   talk   23:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you finish the incomplete sentence: Unfortunately, he has failed to heed this advice and has recently resumed his wikihounding in the form of either removing tags with little.? As for the substance of the matter, I reserve judgment until I hear from the accused party. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like explanation.   Dr Strauss   talk   20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so either removing tags with little explanation or.....? What? Why is this like pulling teeth? Just complete the sentence in your original post, please. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I'd have to do a lot of strikethroughs etcetera. It's really not the most crucial thing in the world and I'm getting to my wits' end with this behaviour.  A formal ban with a "no fault" type proviso is all that is needed with standard WP:IBAN provisions.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * DrStrauss: You've accused ST of "wikihounding", but your statement of what constitutes "wikihounding" is incomplete, which is why it's important for you to finish your thought and tell us explicitly what actions you're accusing ST of. I don't see how you can expect the community to respond to your request unless you tell us specifically what your request is based on. It is not my intention to stress you further, but I do think you have to "fill in the blanks" and finish your thought.  Could you please do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a textbook case: singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work   Dr Strauss   talk   22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strauss, you and I get along well, so you know I'm not coming at this from a bad place, but it really does not help your case that you're being so weird about just finishing the sentence. in the form of either removing tags with little. is an obviously incomplete sentence. It ends in the middle of your point for no reason. To complete it, you don't need to strikethrough anything, you just need to edit the sentence so it doesn't trail off in the middle and your intended audience can understand what you're getting at. Alex Eng and BMK aren't trying to hassle you, we just want to understand your post better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I've updated it :)   Dr Strauss   talk   22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My only statement here is that I received talk pSwisterTwisterage messages when I had also requested no talk page messages and no pings, and this continued happening into this last week. TheSwisterTwister speedy contesting is something anyone can do and I especially removed them because they did not qualify. I'm of course willing to not visit their talk page or anything involving this user but I hope I'm not messaged again or pinged again. SwisterTwister   talk  21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * it seems from this comment that you would like to continue removing DrStrauss' speedy nominations, but would also like DrStrauss to be prevented from discussing those removals with you? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to discuss SD tagging and removal on the article's talk page, so that other editors can be aware of the concerns and comment if they want to? A discussion held on either editors' user talk page is essentially a semi-private one, which does not seem like the best choice for such public actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely, all I want is a standard interaction ban per WP:IBAN.   Dr Strauss   talk   21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not well informed on these editors' history, but if ST wants "no talk page messages and no pings" then how are they to know of a conversation about one of their removed tags? This seems more like ST wants to be allowed to remove tags without having the burden of answering questions in any forum. Just trying to clarify. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) If ST hasn't added the article to their watchlist, then they won't know, which will not afford them the possibility of rebuttal of arguments put forward for its deletion, nor would they be aware if the article is PROD'd or AfD'd. My understanding, which could well be wrong, is that the removal of a SD tag, for whatever reason, is a final action, and the tag cannot afterwards be reapplied, so PROD and AfD are the options available for the editor who still believes the article should be deleted.  Thus, is not the discussion of what, for instance, "inapplicable", means, completely theoretical? And are not the disadvantages of ST's "no talk, no ping" policy all his? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it's PRODs which can only be done once, not speedy, at least as far as official policy goes. A speedy removed in error can still be reinstated, while a PROD removed for almost any reason can't, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith (quoted from WP:DEPROD). ansh 666 22:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew about PRODs, and I certainly may have been confusing the procedure for them with that for speedy deletions, however, I can't find anywhere in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion anything that says you can or cannot re-tag an article once it's been de-tagged for speedy deletion. If anyone knows where this might be found, I'd appreciate it being posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I specifically don't want any talk page messages despite the talkpage message because it was agreed upon, even by a private message offwiki that we not post at each other's talk pages, but I received week: "FYI or it's worth noting". An alternative I won't object to is taking the matter to the relevant talk page. The "Wrong time" article was a TV show and is therefore exempt from the CSD A7, a section in which the clarification is emboldened. I also want to explain that I'm actually removing the speedies because they're in fact not applicable as by the CSD. For example, there were 2 articles that are now nominated that were unmistakably promo-free (only instances where promotionalism could've applied was because of the detailed musician discography, Marcus Tomlinson is the latest one). Each of my AfDs I've participated in the last week, was because the subject was from over 200 years ago and I'm commenting something that would apply in any subject, which is that online searches cannot be the sole factor of proving non-notability. John Grubesic is an instance where I absolutely assumed good faith and added sources myself. What I'm doing here is simply looking out for the better part of ensuring WP:BEFORE and also in CSD criteria, and when the CSD at Wrong time removed, a speedy cannot be restored as by the CSD policy. SwisterTwister   talk  21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ST: It seems that it would address at least a small part of this complaint if you were to be more explicit in your edit summaries when you remove SD tags, as you did with the example cited by Ivanvector, "Shows are exempt from A7 criteria and article is not "blatantly unambiguous", but did not do in the one where you wrote "Inapplicable". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, to expand my explanation of "Inapplicable": The article began with "renowned" and so this is a claim of significance and talking with the "Outstanding Japanese Photographers" source. I intended for those 2 parts to self-explanatory given the article is only 1 sentence, but I was happy to answer and clarify. SwisterTwister   talk  22:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still didn't address the G11 which is why I re-tagged it.   Dr Strauss   talk   22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Clarification: in case it's not clear, ST's record on CSD interpretations as a whole is a separate issue and one which I'm not raising (yet). All I'm asking for is a standard interaction ban per WP:IBAN because this is making editing Wikipedia unenjoyable for me.  I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it and I'm rapidly losing my motivation to stay on the project because of this.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might not be enjoyable for you if your inapplicable speedy deletion templates get removed with an edit summary stating that they are inapplicable, but the solution to that is for you to gain some competence in the application of deletion policies and stop the inapplicable speedy deletion tagging, not to put the blame on someone else, or to simply realise that your judgement as to what warrants deletion does not accord with consensus and to concentrate on more creative forms of editing. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the actual problem here is Dr.S's consistent use of totally inapplicable deletion templates, to the extent that it seems he doesn't really understand the rules or believe in them, or slee doesn't actually read the articles. His approach is illustrated by his recent proposal to let only admins remove speedy tags. There is an immense amount of junk that needs to be speedied, but Dr. S all too often gets it wrong, and is unhappy when people call him on it. Earlier years, ST sometimes showed similar misunderstanding, but they have now learned. I hope Dr. S will also. But one thing is clear--the wrong approach to deletion conflicts is to try to restrict one's opponents.   DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * um... if you check my deletion tag log most of it is red. I rarely keep Twinkle logs because I do most of my speedying via Page Curation.  Seriously, I'm quite good with CSD though I say it myself.  And ST isn't an opponent, he's an agitator.  I have given plenty of diffs to support my statements.    Dr Strauss   talk   22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to regard people with whom one disagrees as enemies, or "agitators". They are at most opponents over specific issues. You've already learned what I think of your tagging, but I normally restrict myself to opposing with respect to specific articles, and would never have brought up the general issue except that the discussion of it had already started. Over the years, I've had strong disagreements at times with various people on deletion policy and other matters, but I've never even thought of going to WP:ANI about it or anything else, or ever asked for sn interaction ban with anyone. There are instances where it is necessary, but they are very few. (and, fwiw, that's what I think on arb com also--we nowadays have very few formal cases, and I'm glad of it, and I am almost always found on the side of the lesser sanctions).  DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't regard ST as an enemy but he is engaging in the act of agitation thereby making him an agitator.   Dr Strauss   talk   22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because someone agitates you does not make them an agitator. Often times, it means you need to take a step back and cool down. --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * , would you go as far as to suggest DrStrauss needs to be disallowed from placing deletion tags? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to avoid making that suggestion; as I said I do not want to prohibit my opponents, no matter how foolish they are.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you for filling in the blanks of your opening statement.You've called for an IBan between you and SwisterTwister, and if SwisterTwister had agreed to that, there would be no issue (I don't think) with an admin imposing that sanction on both of you. But SwisterTwister hasn't agreed to it, I don't believe, which means that the onus is on you to provide the necessary evidence to convince an admin that a mutual IBan is justified, and impose it over ST's objection.  I don't think you've done that job yet.  You've cited a few specific instances, and you've made a number of general accusations, but you have not provided the evidence, in the form of diffs, which I think would be necessary for an admin to agree to your request. That's especially the case because other editors have seen defects in your CSD-related behavior.I understand from my own experience that a perception of being harassed can be quite stressful, and get in the way of your enjoyment of editing Wikipedia, but you've got to convince other editors that your feelings are justified by presenting them with sufficient evidence. It would probably be best if you take some time to collect that information and post it here, because I very much doubt any action is going to be taken without it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Voting on 2 way no fault IBAN

 * Support I like both these editors and appreciate the work they do in AfC and NPP. ST states they don't want interaction and DrS wants an interaction ban. Let's give it to them and everyone goes back to editing. Perceived stalking is no fun and it is even worse to be dragged through ANi to stop it. Being dragged to ANi is also no fun. Neither are obviously problematic users. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Swister Twister has said that he doesn't want interaction on his talk page, but agrees that discussion with DrStrauss on article talk pages would be OK. However, such discussion would be disallowed by a mutual IBan, so until either Swister Twister specifically agrees to an IBan, or DrStrauss provides sufficient evidence to show that one is justified, I feel I must oppose the sanction. This is especially so since a well-established editor and admin has raised questions about DrStrauss's competency at CSD, which adds a entirely new dimension to the dispute between these editors: if DrStrauss is not properly tagging articles for speedy deletion, then it hardly seems reasonable for him to be rewarded with an IBan with editors who correct those problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose when a CSD tag is obviously incorrect then an edit summary of inapplicable is sufficient. The problem here is some incorrect CSD tagging, and an IBAN would not help that, it might even continue it for longer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  04:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless both parties agree. With regards to Dr. Strauss, evidence presented here does seem to indicate that they need more time to understand the deletion process. "Inapplicable" was sufficient and well understood, saying more was not required. Also, the current AfD by Dr. Strauss seems to be ill advised . I feel Sister Twister presented valid rationales during the disagreement between them and NA1000, and I can't find the link for that at this time. ST even offered a compromise on that one.
 * Another thing, there is nothing wrong with moving a PROD tag when ST indicates there are "Several existing books about the subject". My experience with Sister Twister is that they are a very competent editor and they make a huge contribution to this project. I realize some don't like ST being an editor of few words, but they get a lot done. I am not seeing any evidence here to the contrary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well this has gone well...

 * To those who have concerns about my CSD tagging: you only have to use WMFLabs and my deletion tag logs to realise that you're wrong and on the whole I get it right most of the time. IMO I've provided more than enough diffs to prove my case plus I'm on the back foot as I can't cite the similar cases where the articles have been deleted.

 * If an uninvolved administrator wants to close this then be my guest, there's no point sanctioning either of us in any way because I'm taking an extended break from the project and SwisterTwister is clearly untouchable.

 * On the other hand, if people want to keep squabbling, be my guest, I won't be here to see it happening.

 * RL commitments have been suffering due to my Wikipedia activities so I'd like to thank SwisterTwister for finally pushing me over the edge and convincing me that I needn't bother for a while.

 * I'll probably be back next year but I'll still be on IRC if anybody needs me for whatever reason.

 *  Dr Strauss   talk   08:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Polemic userspace list
Can an administrator review and perhaps delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ImTheIP/NastyWikipedians as it seems WP:POLEMIC?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Precedent allows a user to maintain a list of diffs in their userspace if they're preparing to file some kind of report of a user's behaviour, for example. That appears to be what this is, and was created today, so I don't think POLEMIC applies. It might be a good idea for to explain what they're up to, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the title of the list and that on his user page he is advertising as something he is currently working on it seems doubtful. .-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about the list. I created that page, and all the other in my user space, to keep track of various things. Like rude Wikipedia editors. If I can't have it because it violates some policy, then so be it. But it wasn't meant to attack someone. ImTheIP (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sure he could be compiling diffs but with the title "NastyWikipedians" it's evident he's only going to use this as some sort of "Name & shame" page - Delete & if recreates it then he should be blocked, Simple as that. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page as an attack page. There is no way that was being used to prepare for dispute resolution of some kind, it was an attempt at public shaming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This could go further, have you seen their user page? Not entirely sure they're here for a collaborative experience. Canterbury Tail talk  17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You created a list, that you advertise on your userpage, named Nasty Wikipedians but it wasn't meant as an insult to attack someone?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Being called "nasty" is not exactly a particularly scary insult -- not sure it would qualify as an "attack". On the other hand, I was interested to see if my username was on the list. MPS1992 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Scary? I'm not sure where fear comes in to play. Attack, not as in physical. N o you were not on the list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Serialjoepsycho, I am glad to learn that I was not the subject of what is apparently being considered an attack. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was IP who first used the language attack. It also is a personal attack. He suggest it was not meant to be. I'm just curious what it was meant to be. How it was meant to be anything other than a personal attack.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should stay out of this because I don't think it leads anywhere, but here goes... I asked you a question on your talk page you responded with "So, take it to the talk page of the article and get the hell off my talk page." I thought that was uncalled for and I therefore added you to my "list" so that I would remember to avoid interacting with you in the future. Now I will not comment further on this issue (unless the ArbCom demands me to or something). ImTheIP (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible -- although the username and the aggressive material on the user's userpage may have been a sufficient hint on their own. Unfortunately you misnamed your notepage "NastyWikipedians" rather than "NastyConductByWikipedians", thus encouraging it to be viewed as an "attack". (That language was first used by Floquenbeam -- 17:44, 18 September 2017 -- not by ImTheIP, for what it's worth.) Anyway, as you have gracefully accepted, keeping lists of diffs in userspace is not permitted in these circumstances, but that has now been resolved. It seems very unlikely that Arbcom would be demanding you do anything. MPS1992 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I observe that the user page has several prejudicial statements: thou shalt not revert my edits && The best thing about Wikipedia is that you can write about subjects you know about. The worst thing about Wikipedia is that you have to argue with people with no clue. and the user's talk page suggest a remedial "How to work collaberatively" course of study would benefit both the user and the community at large. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably right, but the "experts are scum" problem on Wikipedia has been well documented. MPS1992 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that they aren't an expert, and claim that the whole thing was a joke and that they didn't realize people would take it seriously...which honestly is just stupid IMO. ansh 666 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks by User:DonaldTonald3
Note: There's already an WP:ANV report for this user, so I'll just link the personal attacks, alongside his edit on the sockpuppet investigation page.
 * Special:Diff/801015007 |
 * Special:Diff/801012652 |
 * Special:Diff/801012620 |
 * Special:Diff/801013714 | Sockpuppet_investigations/DonaldTonald

Suspected sockpuppet user kept making threatening edits on these user's talk pages, including mine, after we've reverted his edits constituting vandalism. As of right now, he's continues to vandalize articles and making threats on our talk pages (especially PlyrStar93) whenever we revert his edits as vandalism. Please block this user, and if applicable, hide his threatening edits he made on our talk pages. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO a regular AIV case should get this sorted pretty well, it's just a little bit backlogged for the moment. -★- PlyrStar93 . → Message me. 🖉← 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * and user has been indef'ed. -★- PlyrStar93 . → Message me. 🖉← 04:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User: <IP_ADDRESS>

For the past week, <IP_ADDRESS> has been modifying dates in a couple few lists of historical monarchs, and on one king's page. The dates being inserted have no basis in the historical record, and no attempt is being made to provide verifiability. They have never explained any change, either in the edit summaries or on the relevant Talk pages. This behavior includes changes to multiple different dates and changes to the same dates multiple times. Equally troubling, the majority of these changes are disguised with edit summaries that read simply "Fixed typo". Rather than giving individual diffs, see history: in which every single edit to date by this editor has been a date change (or a tweak to their own date change), most labelled 'Fixed typo', a few as 'Added content', which while not informative at least isn't deceptive. I warned them yesterday about the deceptive edit summaries, and later also provided a pointer to WP:BRD , but today found almost a dozen more 'Fixed typo' date change edits, including on a new page not previously affected, so I gave them a level three disruption warning , and within hours they made five more "Fixed typo" date changes, including to another new page. I would not characterize this as vandalism, because some of them are reasonable dates, just not supportable (or at least supported) ones, so I AGF here, but this can't continue and they show no signs of modifying their behavior. Page protection may help with the most-affected page, but as they keep going after additional pages, that may become a game of whack-a-mole, but they do appear to be using a stable IP. They have been notified. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Accusation and threat by PaleoNeonate over reversion of a reversion
I wish to bring it to notice to people concerned about an issue which I consider unjustified use of privileges, and intimidation of new users, by PaleoNeonate.

I did a BOLD edit for an article, which auser reverted without giving any reason. Seeing it as a violation of revert policy - "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." - I cite not citing of any reason as a reason and re-revert for not following BRD, He, then again, re-reverted it, clearly not following the guideline, mentioned herewith. "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle"

However, other than that, the main issue is PaleoNeonate accused me of "disruptive editing" and violating "Neutral Point of View Policy", and threatened blocking me. Also, in a recent clarification, he accused me of not following BRD.

In this situation, may I know what should I do to address the issue and what can I expect from Administrators?

Thanks!

--The scar face (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could give the name of the article you're talking about where you are having these problems. Alephb (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I see that you raised the issue at Teahouse. I also see that none of the responders advised you to bring the issue to this board. I would advise you to listen to what was said there. ― Mandruss  ☎  09:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I was suggested to raise issue here by PaleoNeonate. Also I don't think, saying me to move on, in any way addresses his behaviour. Like Teahouse, observes, I took the issue to Talk Page. But this is or never was an issue about me changing an article. It was about abuse of privileges, and not following BRD by others, which the advisors at TeaHouse completely miss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It would help if you could give the name of the article you're talking about where you are having these problems. Alephb (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * So he did, here. Fair enough. Clearly he knew from experience what you would be told here. You have all of 5 hours and 14 edits registered editing experience, and I'm going to venture a guess that you don't have a prior long history of unregistered editing. In a disagreement with an editor with 7 months and 5,800 edits, your best approach is "go along now, understand later". This page is not for explaining to brand new editors how things work at Wikipedia, The Teahouse and the Help desk are good places for that. You can also sign up for the Adopt-a-user program for extended one-on-one guidance. ― Mandruss  ☎  10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * didn't threaten to block you. They told you that if you continued to be disruptive you may be blocked.  PaleoNeonate does not have the technical ability to block you.  At this point you need to stay on the article talk page and discuss your preferred version.  If you really want to look at WP:BRD, you were Bold, that bold edit was Reverted and that is when the discussion should have started, with the article at the status quo.  ~ GB fan 10:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "Fair enough. Clearly he knew from experience what you would be told here." - And I am still trying to find a justified answer, instead of subjective opinion of editors.
 * "If you really want to look at WP:BRD, you were Bold, that bold edit was Reverted and that is when the discussion should have started" - I was "Bold", that bold edit was Reverted without explanation, which BRD advises against. I re-reverted it not because I disagreed with explanation, in which case, I should have gone to the Talk:Page, but because no explanation was provided. The same user then reverted it again without accommodating my recommendations, which is defined as Edit Warring. The scar face (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * All you are going to get is the subjective opinion of editors. There are few hard and fast rules in Wikipedia and with experience you learn what the community norms are.  No one is completely in the right and no one is so far wrong that any sanctions are required.  There is nothing any admin needs to do with this situation.  ~ GB fan 11:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no way that you should be complaining about anyone edit-warring, scar face. You made at least four reversions in less than a twenty-four hour period, which steps over the red-line rule at Wikipedia we call WP:3RR. I recommend you review that policy. You are only accusing PaleoNeonate of two reversions, which does not cross that line and is much milder than your behavior. I recommend that you read WP:BOOMERANG, which is a helpful essay to help people avoid the kind of thing you're doing right now. Alephb (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For a moment I thought, "Wow, scar face is a startling way to refer to another editor", until I realized that's actually the other editor's name.  E Eng  16:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this discussion.  I had the same impression.Face-smile.svg   realized later that I was not among the reverting editors and said so on my talk page, where I replied with more details (I did issue a warning during the edit war).  Adding: While WP:BRD is but an explanatory supplement, WP:CONSENSUS is policy (which BRD is also about).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About my invitation to use WP:ANI, it was in answer to a request about how to report me; while I assumed that I would not get in trouble here if I was reported, I still considered adequate to answer the question while also attempting not to scare away the new editor with statements like that it would result in nothing or that WP:BOOMERANG was possible (and I knew boomerang was unlikely for a first ANI report). — Paleo Neonate  – 17:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Threatening language by user Ohyeahbaby
User:Ohyeahbaby and User:Wikiguyy22 made edits to the article Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach) and American University that I reverted as vandalism, e.g. and. Subsequently, Ohyeahbaby edited the article Loxodes with the text "If you ever mess with Barry again...I will find you and SHUT YOU DOWN." This edit was reverted by ClueBot NG. The article Loxodes is listed on my user page as an article that I have contributed to, which is why I believe that it was an attempt to intimidate me personally. American University and Barry Goldberg are otherwise the only articles which Ohyeahbaby has edited. I would appreciate if you could look into this matter. Thank you. Kbseah (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * that's probably . I don't think he's anything more than a nuisance, but you could follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY if you want to play it safe.  I blocked both accounts.  If you see him again, just ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kbseah (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalized articles on Serbian Patriarchs
Today, in short time interval of just 18 minutes (from 10:18 to 10:36) user has vandalized more than thirty articles on Serbian Patriarchs, by removing segments of their official titles in English language, and also by removing all data on their titles in Serbian (Cyrillic) and Greek (Alphabet). He did that unilaterally, without any proposal, discussion or explanation. These are titles of vandalized articles: Kalinik II, Serbian Patriarch, Kirilo II, Serbian Patriarch, Irinej, Serbian Patriarch, Pavle, Serbian Patriarch, German, Serbian Patriarch, Vikentije II, Serbian Patriarch, Varnava, Serbian Patriarch, Dimitrije, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo IV, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch, Pajsije II, Serbian Patriarch, Vikentije I, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo III, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo II, Serbian Patriarch, Atanasije II Gavrilović, Arsenije IV Jovanović Šakabenta, Mojsije I, Serbian Patriarch, Atanasije I, Serbian Patriarch, Kalinik I, Arsenije III Čarnojević, Maksim I, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo I, Serbian Patriarch, Pajsije, Jovan Kantul, Savatije Sokolović, Gerasim I, Serbian Patriarch, Antonije I, Serbian Patriarch, Makarije Sokolović, Pavle I, Serbian Patriarch, Serbian Patriarch Arsenije II, Nikodim II, Serbian Patriarch. This incident might be just the start of something even worse, and therefore some action of administrators is needed. Sorabino (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I encounter this user, as far as I remember, and I have no idea why she or he would lie so blatantly. I did nothing without an explanation; a detailed edit summary accompanied each edit, and no data was entirely removed (it was kept where it belonged). I thus kindly suggest that Sorabino chill out. Surtsicna (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no vandalism here (see WP:VANDALISM for the explanation of what vandalism is). I recommend not to make baseless accusations against other editors, but to try WP:discussion and reaching WP:consensus.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User SupervladiTM making unfounded edits on "Steaua" disambiguation page
User:SupervladiTM seems to be involved in the latest rampage against "Steaua" / "FCSB" wikipedia pages (english version). He keeps altering the "Steaua" disambiguation page, providing personal input that has nothing to do with reality. He obviously has an agenda trying to imply that FCSB (former Steaua) has been stripped of its records and history. This statement is unsubstantiated. Lately he is reverting to providing references that can not be taken into account, i.e. announcements made by one of the parties involved. Please see the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steaua&action=history and also the talk page where I have made efforts to signal the problem and provided references that support my point of view.

I proposed restricting the respective page and imposing a consensus based mechanism before making any subsequent edits. No measure has been taken yet...

Please, let's put an end to this madness!

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thread on this??? This is why footy is on my list of topics we should just drop all coverage of as not worth the trouble. Really. Nobody cares about the Romanian football licensing procedures controversy.  E Eng  12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We do! The fact that you don't care about Romanian football does not justify allowing people to vandalize pages and write whatever they wish. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We do what? Create a needless additional thread?  E Eng  22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is me, User:SupervladiTM. All statements claimed to be unsubstantiated are provided with clear references and active links. Moreover, all these so-called statements are simply what has been decided by Law in Romania. The FCSB club referred to by Taras bulba 47 is no longer referred to as FC Steaua, as they have officially changed their name. If there is any agenda for this topic, it is definitely not mine - and I am referring to continuous vandalism by users which seem to be upset by the existence of a legitimate Wikipedia page, as well as by its legitimate content, sustained by the several references on this respective page. I have never vandalised any page - and moreover, even reverted some vandalism which had been going on on the FC Steaua București (or FCSB) page. Thank you. User:SupervladiTM 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ...wait, I've got to take issue with that claim — I'm not familiar with the subject, but it being a "controversy" implies that *someone* cares about it enough to start stressing over it... Just saying. I mean, the article Deflategate is *massive*, and that (to my outsider eyes) even more so makes me tend to think, "really, who gives a fuck?". Just because something seems trivial/inane to us doesn't mean it's not important to people... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮|John15:12|🍂 06:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Make no mistake, I think American football is the stupidest game ever (other than golf, of course) so I agree with you about Deflategate. But I'm sick of people importing their ethnic and nationalist disputes, over trivia only they see as cosmically significant, to the English Wikipedia. The Romanian football club licensing scandal can be sorted out on the Romanian Wikipedia (if there is such a thing).  E Eng  06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree: there really should be much more substantial coverage of things from non-English-majority countries, since notability isn't language-dependent, and the quantity and depth of non-English-majority content on enwp is lacking by comparison. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮|John15:12|🍂 06:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC) (fixed link syntax —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮|John15:12|🍂 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC))
 * All other things being equal, sure. But not when we're just being used as a place for people to expand the attack front of whatever it is they're battling about. Because when that's what's going on, all you get is what we have here (in two simultaneous threads, in fact).  E Eng  06:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮|John15:12|🍂 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with nationalism or anything else. In fact, the matter has already been solved. A Romanian Court decided that the club now known as Fotbal Club Fcsb had been using the Steaua brand and name illegally. It forbade FC Fcsb from using them. However, some supporters of FC Fcsb choose to ignore the law and pretend that those rulings never occured and that FC Fcsb is still Steaua Bucharest. The real Steaua Bucharest team now plays in the Romanian fourth division. It has the Steaua brand, it's the only one with the Steaua name, and, of course, it has the Steaua records and history. We just want to tell the world the truth. - TPTB (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * You are confused! And confusing, mixing fiction and reality! On the one hand you're talking about court orders forbidding a club to use the "Steaua" brand (REALITY), on the other hand you're mentioning invented scenarios where a newly-founded team acquires history and records of an already existing team (FICTION). Nobody asserts that "FCSB is still Steaua Bucharest"! Any sane person admits the fact that FCSB had lost its right to use the "Steaua" brand and therefore is the football team FORMERLY known as "Steaua Bucharest", a team that had to change its name following the court orders you referenced. As such, "the real Steaua Bucharest now plays in the Romanian fourth division" is, to say the least, confusing. A team formed in 2017 can be considered "the real Steaua" only with regard to its rights over the Steaua brand, but it can hardly be considered "the real Steaua" for footballing reasons - and that is because "the real Steaua" formed in 1947, won the Champions Cup in 1986, split from the Army in 1998 and changed its name in 2014, currently activating as FCSB. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Steaua Bucharest never left the Army. It was never sold. The non-profit known as AFC Steaua Bucuresti only acted as an administrator for the football department. When AFC ceased to exist, everything returned to the Steaua Bucharest sports club. FC Fcsb, on the other hand, was never known as Steaua Bucuresti. Its real and official name was SC Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti SA, a long way from Steaua Bucuresti, CSA Steaua Bucuresti or even FC Steaua Bucuresti. And yes, the SC and SA are both part of the official name that team used until this year, when it changed its name to the stupidest name ever: SC Fotbal Club Fcsb SA. You like to pretend that this fcsb team is Steaua, but it's not. The only things it had in common with Steaua were a stolen brand and a stolen name. And it lost those. - TPTB (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are being contradicted by official documents and by the website of the club you pretend you're protecting. http://www.csasteaua.ro/jocuri-sportive/fotbal/ I quote: "In anul 1998, în urma solicitărilor Federației Române de Fotbal și a Ligii Profesioniste de Fotbal din România – care precizau noile cerințe ale UEFA conform cărora nu mai pot fi admise echipe departamentale– secția de fotbal a fost nevoită să se desprindă de clubul mamă CSA Steaua." Translation: In year 1998, following requests from the Romanian Football Federation and Romanian Football League - which mentioned new UEFA requirements for licensing that forbade state-owned clubs - the football section split from the parent-club CSA Steaua. Again, YOU ARE CONFUSED! Furthermore, your arguments prove again that you don't understand the differences between commercial names and team names. SC, SA, etc. are all commercial names. Letters SA, for example, mean Aktiengesselschaft (German) or Corporation (English), i.e. a society which has shareholders that own shares! This society owns the formerly known "FC Steaua Bucharest" football team. FCSB does not use the Steaua brand anymore. Check your facts.

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks by at AfD discussions
Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston: For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Against Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal".
 * Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view.
 * Then, across both AfDs harrassing, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" , that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people.
 * At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".
 * As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by  for that very reason. Jack | talk page 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk  YO!  19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | talk page 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk  YO!  19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo. 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b. Reyk  YO!  20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo. 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo. 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.
 * Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
 * My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
 * Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
 * If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
 * If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
 * You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
 * GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo. 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):
 * "On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
 * "Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
 * "This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline.""
 * As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias  talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo. 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo. 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo. 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.
 * My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo. 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo. 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo. 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.
 * Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk  YO!  16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?
 * Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo. 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo. 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.
 * Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo. 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | talk page 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.
 * I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.
 * The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.
 * Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
 * Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.
 * Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo. 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:
 * 1) Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
 * 2) This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
 * 3) Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
 * 4) A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo. 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo. 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk  YO!  04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.
 * The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo. 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo. 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.
 * "Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)
 * "Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."
 * The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo. 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.
 * If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
 * What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
 * Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo. 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are: I don't accept either. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
 * Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?
 * Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.
 * Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.
 * Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo. 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo. 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to defend a broken project. If there was no such thing as "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" philosophy this wouldn't be a problem. The only problem would be when we had a bunch of new articles to add. As I say, I could write an article for any of the other 29 Kurunegala YCC players with a single first-class appearance. The hypocrisy of exclusionism is that, in spite of long-held guidelines, they would claim, "not enough"... when the article clearly passed guidelines. I'll find another team and work out stats to show that Kurunegala YCC isn't alone. Bobo. 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lankan Cricket Club, 114 players, seven with a single first-class appearance, all redlinks.
 * Nadun Anuradha
 * Pasindu Bimsara
 * Deshadi Perera
 * Dimuthu Ellawala
 * Charith Rajapakshe
 * Indunil Kumara
 * Tharaka Sampath Bobo. 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I please get an answer beyond reams and reams of off-topic commentary from Bobo? I feel as though my legitimate complaints are just being flooded out with this garbage. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a relentless barrage of personal abuse simply because I disagree with WP:CRIC on inclusion and notability standards? Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was in no way irrelevant and for you to label it that way and collapse my comment is disgusting. The two questions you asked above, I answered. Straight on. Nine minutes after you asked them. Seven hours ago. Your entire rationale is that you disagree with guidelines for notability and inclusion, something that, for right or wrong, WP:CRIC have defended to the hilt. Just so that you remember, at the beginning of this section, you began to question my behaviour, claimed you were keeping on topic, and then veered off-topic claiming that three WP:CRIC members were the "sole arbiters" of inclusion. Bobo. 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was completely irrelevant. The purpose of the conversation is that you and your friends think it's acceptable to call people names for disagreeing with you and that you've singled me out for special abuse. It's a behavioural issue, and the behaviour of WP:CRIC has been atrocious: Can we get someone other than Bobo to weigh in here? All that guy is going to do is continue to flood the conversation with irrelevant complaints about long-closed AfDs and lists of Sri Lankan cricketers to discourage anyone else from commenting. I still say I've done nothing to deserve this ongoing harassment. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * calling me childish
 * and again
 * calling me a liar
 * calling me a coward
 * calling me an idiot
 * calling me NOTHERE, incompetent, dishonest, and threatening to get me blocked or banned.
 * "Irrelevant comments"? You know those two questions you asked? I answered them. Within nine minutes. Bobo. 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * As far as I can see the only person who is in danger of being sanctioned here is User:BlackJack. Jack, if you continue to spray PAs like NOTHERE and CIR (not to mention "idiot" and "ignorant") about against a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability, you will be blocked, that is certain.  If I see you do it once more, I will perform that block myself.  As regards the notability issue, that is not something that is going to be argued here.  Unfortunately we do have a lot of issues with local notability guidelines which don't always mesh perfectly with the global ones, but throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with your project is not the way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I'm pushing the situation aside by saying that how this conversation is going is no longer the real problem. The real problem now is that WP:CRIC has taken a massive hit by this. Not least because no matter how many articles we create we will never be able to complete our true goal of having every cricketer bluelinked as no matter what happens to the Sri Lankan cricketers, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which we are all treating as a different cricketer to Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) will never be created without someone slapping it with CSD G4. Someone other than me (conflict of interest and all) needs to take it to WP:RFU and point out that the player meets WP:CRIN. Bobo. 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this conversation has wandered from its original purpose into other subjects and topics - some of which is my fault and some not. As per a user talk page comment I plan to make to the closing admin, I am thinking of suggesting that I send S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to deletion review based on the fact that the AfD discussion was controversial (based on guidelines) and consensus difficult to determine, and that the article passes generally accepted criteria. For which, of course, I sympathize.

What is the protocol here? Do I need to wait for a response from the closing admin before I go to DRV? Bobo. 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the suggestion here. Bobo. 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have sent this article to deletion review as Spartaz's suggestion. Bobo. 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

So finally we have an answer. According to the deletion review, the problem is with "inadequate sourcing". Which is an interesting one. Given that for a great deal of cricket-related Wikipedia articles, the "sourcing" is completely identical, does that mean every article is "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have followed links to this discussion from the deletion review which I !voted on. Now I am not a major cricket editor, but I follow enough articles and have been here long enough to have a general understanding of the project. It sucks when articles you have been working on have been deleted and there is generally a bit of leeway given as emotions do rise, but this has reached an untenable point. Any outsider who looks at this is going to take a dim view of WP:CRICKET, which would be unfair as there are many good editors involved in it. At the end of the day there is no bright line on notability and different editors hold different views on what makes something notable enough to include here. If you can't except that without resorting to the level of badgering and hostility displayed above and at the linked deletion discussions then you are not going to have an enjoyable time here. AIR corn (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is so untrue it makes me wonder what the point is of any cricketing editor continuing to work on our project. One major cricketing appearance. Nothing could be more clear. Exactly the same guideline as every single other professional competitive sport. A guideline we've been following diligently for so long that I'm sure it's not just me who is questioning what the point is of defending guidelines any more. No guideline could be clearer. Bobo. 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A guideline??? Really??? Where is my article? I've made one major cricketing appearance. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I respectfully suggest that we have moved so directionlessly on from questions about my conduct to that of cricket inclusion criteria that it is now the cricket project which is under more serious threat than me. There is no further point in me attempting to justify my wish to follow some of the most painfully explicit guidelines on the encyclopedia, and frankly I believe the same is true of my friends. And there is no further point in attempting to defend a project which, as is clear from recent debates, both open, dormant, closed, and thrashed like a dead horse, no longer serves its incredibly simple purpose of providing articles for every single first-class cricketer. And that couldn't be less to do with my personal conduct. Bobo. 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" wars apparently never ended
I feel as if I'm in a time warp. Years ago, some editors tried their damnedest to get "In popular culture" sections banned from en.Wiki, but they failed to do so. There has never been a community consensus to remove IPC sections wholesale, but apparently User:BrightR never got the memo, and his behavior on Nude swimming has become disruptive. Two editors (myself and User:ClemRutter) have disagreed with his removal of that article's IPC section, but BrightR continues to remove it. I've invited him on numerous occasions to discuss any specific issue he may have with specific entries, but he refuses to do so, simply removing the entire section numerous times. Although this is, of course, a content dispute, the issue is being brought here because BrightR's behavior has gone well past the point of WP:Disruption and has become Tendentious.

I ask for no sanctions here, simply the BrightR be told that he must discuss the issues of the entries, and that there is no consensus for the wholesale removal of IPC sections without local consensus to do so, which he does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Relevant RfCs and quotes from policy that Beyond My Ken is ignoring :
 * RfC : in-popular-culture "self-sourcing" example - Beyond My Ken participated in this RfC and was pointed to it several times. The RfC provides almost-unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves, and require sources that explain why they're "encyclopedic".
 * WP:Local consensus - Beyond My Ken repeatedly assets local consensus (or the lack of it) in order to avoid broader consensus and Wikipedia policies, as the case here.
 * Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (sections of WP:V) put the onus to provide citations for restoring challenged material, not on removing it. The removed material was poorly sourced, and until it is properly sourced, Wikipedia policy and RfC consensus support its removal.
 * Most recently Beyond My Ken complained that I removed the image gallery. This is a separate issue, but generally galleries should be carefully-selected and are subject to consensus, but again this is a minor issue that Beyond My Ken tacked on just now.
 * In general it appears that Beyond My Ken is attempting to bully his way out of Wikipedia policies and RfC consensus. Bright☀ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another little bullying trick that is specifically mentioned in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that Beyond My Ken is "reverting to status quo" ("stable version") in order to avoid policy-backed or consensus-backed edits. Bright☀ 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that local consensus cannot override policy, and I've never claimed that it could. What I've claimed (pace the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy, therefore being completely advisory in nature) is that WP:V clearly says that unsourced material can (but not must be) deleted, but this IPC material is sourced by primary sources (not ideal, but acceptable nonetheless) and therefore is not in any practical sense "unsourced", since it can easily be verified by rference to the media material being cited, and therefore cannot be deleted in the manner that BrightR assumes it can.

 * In any case, however, AN/I is not the place for BrightR and I to repeat the same arguments we've had on the talk page. AN/I is not for the settling of content disputes, and that's not why I brought it here.  The relevant question for admins and the community to consider is BrightR's behavior in continuing to remove material over the objections of two editors, without consideration that it might possibly be the case that their position is incorrect.

 * I have consistently said that I'm more than happy to engage BrightR's concerns about specific problems with specific items, and in that way remove any doubtful or trivial items from the list. I do this all the time, and I agree the IPC lists can grow like topsy if they're not carefully pruned on occasion.  I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but it's one that BrightR refuses to accept.  I feel that we can work together, if only he would agree to actually work together and stop removing the section in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * completely advisory in nature - the RfC represents consensus. Broad community consensus, by many community participants, with an almost unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves or to passing mentions in secondary sources.
 * remove material over the objections of two editors - again, local consensus does not override broader community consensus and policy.
 * stop removing the section in toto - one item that was properly sourced remained. The rest are not properly sourced, and per consensus were removed. Your insistence on local consensus to override borader community consensus is the problem. Consensus is completely advisory in nature when it suits you... It's not. The issue here is your refusal to follow policy and consensus, which you have done again and again. Bright☀ 19:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the paragraph that starts "I feel as if I'm in a time warp" was written. Has BrightR expressed opposition to IPC sections? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BMK: Most of that section is unsourced. Per WP:V (policy, not just local consensus), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Please do not restore material such as this without satisfying that burden. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) I'm sorry, but that is inaccurate. A primary source is still a source.  It's not a preferred source, but it's still a source.
 * (2) That's a comment pertinent to the content dispute, which you're more than welcome to join at Talk:Nude swimming. AN/I is not for determining content disputes, so it's not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your behavior in restoring material that has no footnotes at all, after their inclusion was disputed, is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - FTW with the Toto pic! Looks like something that should be mentioned in Ear#In_popular_culture. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment 7 reverts is quite a lot, BMK. Fully support removal of these unreferenced sections per WP:V, and editors warring to replace them should be sanctioned. WP:ONUS is worth a look here. --John (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Question I am often confronted with unsourced IPC sections with statements like "Toto was played by Pepe the Prawn in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". You are not permitted to source them to the IMDb. The argument is that the film itself is a primary source for the statement, so it does not require an inline citation. My personal position is that unless the appearance is significant enough to warrant mention elsewhere, it is not worth mentioning in an IPC section. But what is the official position? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree with my colleagues immediately above. It's at least once a month that I see added to  a  serious biography on some obscure political figure a breathless in popular  culture that he's mentioned  in a video game. I won't go so far as to say that In Popular Culture sections are the worst plague we have  at  Wikipedia. But they at least get Honorable Mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also generally require reliable secondary sourcing for such entries on the articles I've worked on (example: tesseract) not so much to verify that the concept makes an appearance, but to verify that it was central enough to whatever popcult thing it appeared in to be worthy of note. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. IPC sections are magnets for truthful but random bits of information. If a secondary source has noted it, then inclusion is reasonable. --M ASEM (t) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to think of IPC sections as snapshots of the culture, which are of value to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Such snapshots are of value only when reliable independent secondary sources take note of them, saying something like "gorgeous painting A and B movie B made significant contributions to the understanding of nude swimming in popular culture", . Otherwise, they are just poorly referenced and non encyclopedic "cruft", if you will excuse the term. Speaking personally, I find this type of content really irritating. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How many pictures does it take to illustrate nude swimming?
Are there adults here willing to trim the number of images used in this article? Fifteen images to illustrate the concept of nude swimming seems excessive. We wouldn't put up with this many images in most articles of this length, so why is it ok here? Why is it that anything to do with nudity seems to be controlled by adolescent boys? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And as a further note, out of those fifteen pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single image showing an older person. There is one image out of fifteen which shows a person of color. Why have so many images of the same thing: young, white people swimming nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a different question: apart from posting on AN/I, how should an editor draw attention to a page like this? Neither WP:GA nor WP:AfD is the least bit appropriate for discussion. Power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have went ahead and trimmed it down further. We did not need thirteen pictures on a relatively small article. I left the most notable piece of art, which was also a featured article. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and restored the images. If you wish to remove any particular image at that article, you need to reach consensus for that at Talk:Nude swimming. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Barring a second discussion starting about this, FreeKnowledgeCreator, is there something that fifteen images you re-added provide that the four images I left didn't provide about nude swimming? Per Manual of Style/Images, most of them appeared decorative, and distracting to the content of the article. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic. Perhaps some of those images could be removed, but as noted, it is up to you to discuss which images should be removed at Talk:Nude swimming and to gain consensus for removal of those images. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Further discussion here serves no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator: I'm not going to make any further comments or start any other discussion about this. It doesn't sound like you either hear me, or want to directly reply. So I'll leave this discussion following this post. However, "The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic." is inherently wrong. Staying on a similar topic, if I placed ten more images of random men and women masturbating on the Masturbation article, it is in the scope of the topic, but it's distracting and excessive. Neither this example or the nude swimming article provide enough content or context, especially for the images provided. It is true of any topic though, so just give it a go and attempt it on any other article. Most of the article images are of nude swimming art and there is minimal content, at best. One is a terrible