Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956

User Murph9000 reverted the same wiki article for too many times without providing adquete reasons!

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen

Wiki article, Comparison of instruction set architectures, has been reverted by user Murph9000 and some others for too many times, without providing adequate reasons! I feel that it is quite unfair for anonymous editors who did really contribute. I wish such thing could be mediated in proper way! And that wiki article also needs further corrections and improves. Those people bring too many troubles!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.114.7 (talk • contribs)

From a quick investigation, it looks like you did not bother to notify Murph9000 (talk · contribs) (I will do so) and it looks to me like there's a claim you are an indefinitely blocked user called Aaron (this is not WP:OUTING, this is what I see from the edit histories on that page). I'm not sure which specific user you are, though. If you do have an account indefinitely blocked, you are not permitted to edit at all, until that account is unblocked. The multiple other editors who are reverting you are acting appropriately. If you do not have an account which is blocked, you are in violation of WP:3RR and should be blocked on that basis, but then so should other editors. I'm not sure which situation we are in, though, so I am personally taking no action. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Also notified Jeh (talk · contribs), Guy Harris (talk · contribs), Vincent Lefèvre (talk · contribs), all of whom have also been reverting the edits. Which tends to lend credence to the reporter indeed being someone engaging in block evasion, I suppose. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have already created an SPI report regarding the numerous IPs with which I believe the reporter here has been evading his block (although it does not yet include the most recent IPs used today. (n.b.: As clear a case of WP:DUCK as I've ever reported.) The backlog at SPI is, sadly, severe at the moment and this is preventing timely action on my and many other reports, but perhaps, with these 3RR issues at stake they can be paid additional attention. Note that blocking "the IP" will have little effect because he seems to have two different /19 IP blocks (at least) at his disposal and it is apparently very easy for him to change within them; he has used at least half a dozen different IPs just in the last 24 hours. The only recourse to protect the encyclopedia is to continue reverting and trust that SPI will come to the right decision in a timely manner. Jeh (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Both users, the motivations why Jeh and Guy Harris guard their mistakes on related articles are very suspicious. They deny the things which almost all the software vendors recognise. Those software vendors differentiate x86-64 from x86, but they both treat them as one. So I guess they might earn money from Intel, so they prevent such modifications to related wiki articles! 119.53.114.7 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Those software vendors differentiate x86-64 from x86..." Yes, but the context on this page is different. Depending on the context, two things may be regarded as different or part of the same group. This is no different from the other architectures on the same page. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

At least some of those software vendors also differentiate 32-bit XXX from 64-bit XXX for values of XXX other than x86, because, for example, you need different compiler options to generate code for 64-bit XXX, and you need a 64-bit processor running an OS that supports 64-bit code to run software for 64-bit XXX. Nothing special about x86 here. Guy Harris (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, as stated by multiple users, and extremely obvious from even a brief glance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen. Reverts are per WP:EVASION, which has been made quite clear to this IP hopping LTA case before my first revert, and which I made quite clear in one of my subsequent reverts. This ANI case is just another example of extreme bad faith from this globally-locked user who is indeffed from EN-WP and 5 other WMF wikis. Murph9000 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Wow. Block evasion and sockpuppetry dating back to September of 2015 and edit warring, personal attacks, and disruptive editing dating back a year further. It's clearly the same user, and you are being much too nice. I'd suggest removing any comments they post on article talk pages, either. I endorse the actions taken by Murph9000 and by the other named editors in this thread and will block the IP address and protect the page. To the person who opened this thread, you are not permitted to edit any Wikipedia article until your original account is unblocked. You, the person who opened this thread, are the one being abusive. Massively abusive. --Yamla (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. I've replied to a couple of WP:FORUMSHOPPING type messages this particular IP left on some user talk pages, because I was named in them. I pretty much WP:DGAF about the messages that were left there, but I give my explicit permission to remove my replies if an admin feels the need or desire to EVASION-revert the messages. Murph9000 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yamla. It is gratifying that the SP reports (of which I contributed not a small fraction, especially recently) provided enough info to allow you to hear the quacking, as it were. It is also good to be told that blanket reverting, even of the LTA's talk page "contributions" (I use the term loosely), is the right thing.

Of course, when we revert, the LTA will simply re-revert. As you have already seen. (I was hoping that this particular EW would lead to the currently-attacked page being semi-protected rather before this.) SPI reports have been ineffective due to the LTA's IP-hopping and also due to the many-days backlog at SPI.

The only way I can see to get the point across is protecting the pages, but RFP is not being acted upon particularly quickly either. I'd had a request up to SP that page - it was finally acted upon after almost 12 hours.

I feel that if this LTA's abuses are consistently, swiftly reverted and then blocked via protection, we'll get a better result, per WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. And even if we don't it's more effective at protecting the encyclopedia than edit wars. Is there a reporting venue or some such that would get faster action on RFPs? Would an entry at LTA help? Jeh (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

A LTA report would probably help. I'm also monitoring Comparison of instruction set architectures for any further violations. And yeap, swiftly reverting, blocking, and semi-protecting the pages this vandal is targeting will help, though that requires an admin actually notice what's going on. Others may have better ideas, too. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat on Chloe Khan...again!

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

---

There has been another legal threat made on the above article, this time someone purporting to be the subject. It can be found here. Cassianto^Talk 23:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. The problem here is that the claims are well-sourced with reliable sources, as far as I can see, and the user, under a different guise, has previously been warned about legal threats. The claim can (and should) be removed if there's a reliable source indicating the claim was actually false, but as far as I know, none has been presented. That said, I had never heard of Chloe Khan until these issues cropped up. --Yamla (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. Have also left them a message about their options, including if they really do wish to pursue legal action. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not every little incident with the authorities is necessarily notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mary Bell

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

---

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in his one man vigilante campaign against non-free photos in BLP articles removed the photo from Mary Bell even though it is explained that Mary Bell lives under anonymity and will not pose for a free photo. Please reprimand him. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It might not be that the removal is based on non-free, WP:MUG - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a mugshot of a child, so I've deleted it as a BLP violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if there was no BLP issue, we simply do not use non-free photos of living people, even of those who refuse to pose for photos. Including photos in articles is by no means mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a whit about this particular article, but can you point me to where it says we don't use non-free photos of living people? Just for my education. EEng 07:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1 is generally applied in that way. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

To add to the above: It does not explicitly state that, but it is generally applied in that way because with a living person there is always the chance they will change their mind and make a photo available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Ban evasion by RXX-7979Ⅲ

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

---

RXX-7979Ⅲ was banned a couple of weeks ago from making any edit relating to Japan history and Japanese war crimes. His first edit following the ban notification was a non-neutral change to the comfort women article, misrepresenting a source from IWG and using an unreliable Facebook reference to greatly diminish the Japanese comfort women issue. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week for the obvious topic ban. And yes, I too can find nothing remotely similar to the alleged quote in the cited document. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

another fuck off from MjolnirPants

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

---

Well with this edit that make two fuck offs over the same matter (though this one was asking him to strike the first) [1] [2]

Allow me to analyse the first fuck off.

"*@Slatersteven: Two things: I'm getting pretty sick of seeing you pop up to tell me what you think I'm doing wrong. "

A mild PA, in which he comments on me not the subject. Also had to see how I was hounding him, not only did I post first in this thread but I never directly replied to him in that threads, or even mention him. At worst I reply to another user underneath his reply to that user.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"It got old a long time ago, so why don't you just fuck off and bother someone else, kay?"

Do I need to say more?

"Second, Linking other editors to a photo and essentially telling them to draw their own conclusions is pretty much the most OR type of OR that ever ORed and the fact that you would argue with this does not speak highly of you."W

Well not only do I not say this, but in fact agree with MjolnirPants that OR is not acceptable.[3], this by the way ds the post I mention above, as can be seen it is not indented as a reply to MjolnirPants. In addition he continues with the snide snipping.

All of this in response to me (as far as I can tell) asking "users" to treat new users with respect and not not mock them.

I asked him to strike the post [4]. which provoked the second fuck off. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If we started blocking people because they told their colleagues to fuck off- particularly in their own userspace, where much more latitude applies- we'd have a much smaller workplace with much fewer articles! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

He did not just do it in his user space. The second (I linked to, the first he said) was in the Fringe theory notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone wants the backstory click here. The fringe theory issue ran like this:

• Editor A advocates Original research over pineapples in Rome (sadly not a joke)
• MPants says 'Have you read or heard of OR?' linking to it.
• Slatersteven replies to MPants with (as is usual for SS) a half-baked understanding of policy/guidelines. This is an ongoing issue.
• MPants loses his rag as this is not the first time they have had to deal with this.

Frankly SlaterSteven, you would be told to fuck off less if you would stop hectoring vastly more experienced editors than yourself, repeatedly showing a limited understanding of the various policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How did I deserve this latest attack, how the hell was I hectoring him? Also as far as I know there is no justification under policy for telling another user to fuck off, not matter what (there was not this time) the provocation. I did not respond to him at all in that thread. Post the link where I did? What I did was to agree with him about OR, and then ask all users to refrain from being disrespectful (he had not been disrespectful up to that point) So I fail to see how or why he launched his attack on me. Nor can I see how you (or otehrs) seem to think I was hectoring him, when he had not done what I was asking people not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nor have I asked for a block, but I am not sure that even agreeing to not interact with each other (as I did not interact with him here) would help.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) (Non-administrator comment) Here you go. If that wasn't in response to MP's comment just above, it's a pretty good imitation and it fooled me. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is indented as a reply to N591real (at least according to how I understand indentation in Wikipedia) Wikipedia:Indentation. Also (as I said) as this in no way comments on anything he (Pants) did how can I be responding to him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Mr. Pants has adopted the correct behavioural response to Mr. Steven. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Indents aren't that reliable as an indicator, off-by-one errors are quite common. Moreover, N591real did not reference OR, MP did. Berating N591 to be kind to noobs does not make sense from any perspective. As I said, if it wasn't in response to MP, you fooled me (and MP, by the looks of it). In short: I don't believe you. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. The comment actually makes no sense in context if it was in reply to N591real. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

<slow clap> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fig-showing on Steve_Munro

IPs displaying cringe-worthy saccharine schwärmerei. Dunno if it needs a sock investigation, a partial protect, or what, but it needs something. Anmccaff (talk)

@Anmccaff: Let's try a one month pending changes protect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Username oddity

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

---

User:Steve Bannon looks like a username violation (impersonation of Steve Bannon). I would normally post this to WP:UAA but there's a Huffington Post article that already oddly published about some of the user's actions. Seems very odd. 2601:282:B01:A696:2D4D:D2DE:123A:2A27 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a username violation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And a few socks as well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Botched History merge (by me)

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

---

Fixed

Pamela Clemit needs to be created with its complete history, please see [5] and [6]. Help! I shouldn't try to do these things. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Done. —Cryptic 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much, Cryptic. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

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

Contacting president Putin?

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

---

Should not the user be indefinitely blocked [7]? I am not really happy with KGB or FBI being alerted on my Wikipedia activities.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, the KGB has not existed for quite some years so no worries there. The FBI is still in business, at least for the moment.

With that out of the way: A comment like that from some users would simply be a lame attempt at humor. I'm not familiar enough with @User:Cminard to know if that's the case here. And you should have contacted her as required. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

KGB became FSB, and this is where she complained to. I was indeed required to contact her, but believe me attention of FSB is a pretty serious threat for me, and asking for more attention increases the chances of some events I would not like to see. Now she has been dealt with, anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, WP:NLT. I expect these organisations, along with the NSA, were probably already monitoring your, and everyone else's, Wikipedia activities. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Putin is a very busy man, I highly doubt some report about a content dispute on Wikipedia is going to get to his desk or concern him in the slightest. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you have a look at the deleted old version of her user page, you'll get some idea of how seriously she's likely to be taken by the relevant authorities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • um...I know this is pretty old by now, but some of that deleted stuff should have been oversighted--and still should be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not think Putin would be interested at all, but right now there are a lot of cases in Russia when people are jailed for twits etc. The signals typically come from, um, unstable whistleblowers. I am not currently in Russia, but still...--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Good thing for Trump we don't jail people for twits here in the US. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation removed. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Content note: Article contains the passage: Three dolphins applauded the president for feeding them fish, while the walruses even shook his hand. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Adorned in white overalls to resemble a bird, Putin did manage to get some cranes to fly. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame the title of this thread isn't something like BITEy behavior at Pets of Vladimir Putin. EEng 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any objection if I quietly vanish this shrine to crazy as well? It's not quite Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, but it's certainly serving no useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone put a proposed deletion tag on the copy and pasted article, so she copied it, and removed the prod. I nominated the article for deletion now. — JJBers 17:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
(It was this article)

I voted to keep the article since it is as good as the other similar pages, some of which I was already aware of. Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS? Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation removed EEng 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:WAX... And possibly WP:TRIVIA. — JJBers 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

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

---

First of all, apologies if this is in the wrong place, and feel free to move it.

Several days ago, an anonymous user asked this question on the Reference Desk. After some brief discussion, User:Medeis suggested it be closed due to the questioner asking for opinions, something discouraged on the Reference Desk. Myself and User:JackofOz did not agree that he had done so or that it should be closed, and stated our reasons why. One user, User:Baseball_Bugs, did agree that it should be closed, but for a reason quite separate from Medeis's, and one that is not a valid reason to close a RD question at all (the questioner not having responded for 18 hours). At this point, with two in favor and two opposed, otherwise-uninvolved User:Ian.thomson closed the thread for a third reason - an anonymous IP was vandalizing it. I opened this discussion, Ian Thomson explained his reasoning, an administrator banned the problem IP, and some other users expressed support for keeping the question open and concern at Medeis's general excessive tendency toward closing people's questions and ignoring consensus on the reference desks. No one posted in support of the closing, and Medeis didn't offer any new reasoning beyond what (s)he'd already said. I unhatted the question since the vandal issue was now dealt with and there was clearly no consensus to close, and figured that would be the end of it.

However, Medeis promptly hatted it again. I reverted this second hatting, and asked Medeis to explain him/herself in the talk page discussion. Without doing so or in fact saying anything further at all, (s)he simply hatted it yet again, with no explanation beyond "not this again." At this point I'm bringing it here out of 3RR concerns and because Medeis is clearly uninterested in the consensus on the talk page.

I find this situation quite troubling and am not sure what should be done about it. This is far from the first time issues of this nature has arisen around Medeis. (S)he is extremely active on the Reference Desk, possibly the most active user there, and the majority of his/her contributions are helpful. However, a quite substantial minority are not. Medeis received a six-month topic ban from the Reference Desk in 2014, although it was later rescinded when another admin decided there wasn't consensus. This had no effect on his/her behavior. A perusal through the Reference Desk talk page archives, or Medeis's own talk page, will find many other instances where Medeis's application of his/her own ideas about what the Reference Desk's rules should be has caused friction with other editors. (S)he seems to view the Reference Desk as his/her personal fief, and if the general rules and guidelines of Wikipedia/the RD or the community consensus disagree with his/her personal views, (s)he simply ignores them.

I am really not sure what to do about a user like this. Personally, I think a topic ban would be warranted - I don't think Medeis's positive contributions to the Reference Desk outweigh the combative and haughty attitude with which (s)he interacts with others there. But (s)he is far from a pure vandal, so I'm not sure that would be appropriate under Wikipedia's procedures. Warnings and discussions in which consensus sharply disagree with him/her seem to have no effect whatsoever though, and if an admin simply unhats this question again and takes no other action, we're just going to be running into these issues again, and again, and again. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM IN RESPONSE TO User:MarnetteD'S QUITE REASONABLE REQUEST FOR MORE EXAMPLES:

Ten more examples of (IMO) inappropriate closures by Medeis, all within the last month. Especially troubling is that she simply removed a couple of them, making it impossible for anyone else to even realize it was ever there.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medeis hats a question on the grounds of it being "far too broad to be worth the cognitive effort," even though it had already received a well-referenced answer that the user said he appreciated (if it's not worth the cognitive effort to YOU, you don't have to answer...) [8] Medeis closes someone's questions related to a sci-fi story they were writing on the grounds that "the RD doesn't do homework for you" (no indication was given that this was homework, the question implies otherwise if anything), after a half dozen others had already given relevant responses [9] Medeis closes a question that had already received several relevant responses because "we cannot comment on unspecified material," weird to begin with and an extremely narrow and unreasonable interpretation of what the person was asking [10] Medeis hats a question because "WP:BLP does not allow speculation about the motives of living figures--provide relevant sources" when the user specifically asked for references, not speculation - apparently Medeis sees simply having asked this question as a BLP violation, which is ridiculous [11] Medeis removes a two perfectly neutral and reasonable questions from the same user because she assumes he's a known troll from the past simply because, I guess, his questions relate to racist regimes of the past, and this known troll was a racist (none of the contributions from the actual questioner's IP were problematic). A definite WP:AGF violation if nothing else. [12] and [13] Medeis removes a question as "a request for personal judgments" when an equally reasonable interpretation would be that the questioner was asking about standard procedure [14] Medeis removes an innocuous questioner because the questioner had been banned for causing unrelated problems elsewhere [15] Medeis hats a question, where, admittedly, another user had expressed concern that the question was too vague as stated, but he was actively talking with that user to clarify that he was specifically looking for references, not debate, and asking for help on how to reword his question better [16] Medeis removes a question saying "we don't make judgments here," even though it was blatantly obvious the questioner was asking about prevailing Victorian attitudes and not RD users' personal views [17]

I have also thought of a specific sanction I think would be appropriate - can we simply ban Medeis from closing reference desk threads? If they genuinely need to be closed for legitimate reasons, someone else will. But these constant closures of people's perfectly reasonable questions do serious harm to the Reference Desk - I cannot think of a better way to scare people off. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Moved this thread from AN to AN/I as AN/I is the more appropriate forum for discussion of editor behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notifications left for both involved editors; Medeis' notification and Elmer Clark's notification. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see it noted that it was not I, but user @Ian.thomson: who hatted that discussion after I and @Baseball Bugs: suggested that it should be. I see no mention of the fact that @WaltCip: enforced the hatting and semiprotected the page, given an IP user he identified as a sockpuppet had been editting disruptively and refactoring my edits. I do see Elmer Clarks revival of the thread, when even the original OP had lost interest in it, after two days as a deliberate provocation, hence my reversion of the pointy reopening and my "not this again" comment. To summarize, there's no need for me to discuss reverting refactorings of my own comments, I am not the one who hatted the thread, an admin protected the page and closed the thread, and a reversion of a pointy re-opening two days later does not count as edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • • I just wanted to point out for the record I am not an admin and I do not have the authority to semi-protect pages. I'm not sure where Medeis is getting this idea.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I did in fact note that it was Ian Thomson and not you the first time (but not the second or third). And I think it's a little ridiculous to say I "revived this as deliberate provocation" after the "OP had lost interest" when that OP expressly asked for it to be re-opened and wondered what was going on in the talk page section. Your description of the admin's actions are also very misleading - the only admin action taken was specifically in response to the vandalism issue, it was certainly no endorsement of the thread being closed on your supposed grounds, which, in fact, everyone else roundly disagreed with on the talk page. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged by Elmer Clark and because I only have time right now for Wikipedia in at least the the next 24 hours but probably longer, let me give my opinion. I have made it clear many times that the fundamental problem with the Ref Desk is that it is not so prominent, there is an unhealthy low ratio of people asking questions to people answering questions, this then invites disputes about administering the site. Basically, it's the "too many captains on a small ship problem", which then probably leads to negative feedback on any would be question askers; they are not going to bother to come to our ref desks. Medeis is our de-facto alpha woman who has taken it upon herself to hat questions that she thinks are not appropriate. Most of the time her actions are appropriate, the problem really is about the way she goes about this which is going to lead to friction when her actions are judged to be wrong by others. Even if that happens just in one out of 50 cases, that's then still going to be a problem.

The way forward is for everyone but especially Medeis to get a sense of perspective here. The Ref Desks has been surpassed a long time ago by StackExchange, this is why I spend a lot more time there than here, see my questions and answers there, clearly the set-up there invites a lot more high quality contributions. As I've also said w.r.t. to the other hot button issues regarding legal and medical advice: It's besides the point as no one ever comes here to get any sort of meaningful advice anyway. We're pretending to be a university when in reality we're just bunch of toddlers making a lot of noise in Kindergarten. Imposing your rule here is then like fighting to get your way as the mayor of PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming, a total waste of time. What may be more worthwhile is to try to make the Ref Desk to become more prominent. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

First the OP has noted one specific situation (for which they have some of the particulars wrong) and then expanded that to make broad statements about behavior by Medies for which not a shred of evidence to back up is provided. Next, what admin action does the OP want - they make a vague reference to a topic ban and then act like it is up to somebody else to enact it. Lastly, I have to wonder how someone with who averages less than 100 edits a year since 2010 has any idea of what goes on at the ref desks on a daily basis. The free-for-all that the RD's have become could use "centralized discussion" but until that happens this thread is not going to accomplish anything. BTW M is nowhere close to the most active editor on the RD's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe I have any of the particulars wrong - see my response to Medeis. And while I rarely edit these days (largely because of how toxic my favorite part of Wikipedia, the Reference Desk, has become) I still read it almost daily, so I don't think it's inappropriate for me to comment on general trends there. Your other point is fair and well taken though - give me a couple of hours and I'll post some more specific examples of recent problem behavior. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And as to not suggesting any specific course of action, I simply don't know what would be appropriate in a case like this (I've never encountered anything similar here) and was hoping more experienced editors might offer up a reasonable solution. If you're only supposed to post here to petition for a specific course of action then I apologize. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started threads before asking the community what action they think is appropriate but those threads showed a long-term trend with minimal commentary (maybe a paragraph of context and a list of WP:DIFFs with short summaries). Show, don't tell. Also, in those instances, the most obvious course of action was a block (topic bans generally being a last chance). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want a part of this drama but I would like to clarify something: My explicit reason for hatting the thread was not vandalism, it was that it seemed the shortest and simplest way to stop an edit war since the thread had gone quite off-topic. I did not consider it an administrative action since that's probably what would've happened without the tools. Since other users disagreed and someone blocked one of the users involved in the edit war, I didn't see any point in continued action from me.
  The RD is problematic, there does need to be centralized discussion for changes (probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), and I'd be interested if that happens. Otherwise, that's really all I've got to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If the OP has read the ref desks "daily" for nearly seven years (and they have changed quite a bit in that time) they would know that there have been numerous editors (including myself) who have closed threads. Some have agreed with those closes and others haven't, yet you have only brought one editor to ANI. That is troubling to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any blanket objection to closing questions ever, I simply believe Medeis in particular frequently does it when not warranted, to the detriment of the desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three classes of editors who close questions on the refdesks (with a fair amount of overlap). First, there are those who make uncontroversial closes, and the only reaction they get from other refdesk editors is an occasional thank you. Second, there are those who make some dodgy closes, but as soon as several other editors star pushing back they back off, usually with an apology. Third, there are those who do a lot of dodgy closes, and dig in their heels when they encounter pushback from the other regulars. Medeis/μηδείς is in the third group. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Medeis hats discussions all that frequently nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you see my list of examples? Do you not think ten hattings in a month is a lot? Or do you think all/most of those examples were in fact justified? -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Close this thread

• Support There is no admin action requested. So the only reason for the thread it to smear Medeis. As far as I am concerned this needs to be closed before it delves any further into WP:HOUND territory. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please hold off, I am adding further references and requesting a specific course of action as we speak -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've now added ten more examples in the collapsible box and suggested a specific sanction I believe would solve the problem without sacrificing Medeis's positive RD contributions. Please let me know if I need to take any further action to allay your concerns. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. If admins are interested, here's yet another pointless provocation by OP 2600 on my talk page, the same IP who was reverting other's actions and refactoring my comment on the thread that is the "basis" for this "complaint". (I'll be asking for a permanent semi-protect there as soon as I post this). μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this IP has nothing to do with this complaint at all. It's totally irrelevant, a confounding factor actually that muddies the waters of the real issue. The issue is you closing questions, or advocating closing them, when there is no reason to do so, and persisting even when consensus is clearly against you. You originally wanted to close the question because it was asking for opinions, before this IP even showed up. Later, you DID close it twice, even though this IP had been banned by then. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this IP was NOT the OP! -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if you are going to add new evidence, you should give actual edit summaries or edit qutes with diffs on the open forum, not hidden under a hat inside your original complaint. You make numerous errors which I would call factual errors. My deletion of User:Neptunekh's edits requires no sanction. She's a banned user, one who has threatened self-harm, and who is subject to summary deletion as such. The 2600 IP6 range has not been banned, IP ranges are not banned, but User:WaltCip has indeed identified them as disruptive sockpuppets, and again, no further sanction is necessary to revert their edits. You will find that all the so-called hattings you have attributed in this case are mere reversions to the prior state established by Ian.thomson. I agree with him that his hatting does not mean he agrees with me.

Nevertheless, I agree with him that unnecessary edit warring over moot non-requests for references is not a good idea.

Finally, you repeat this nonsense that I am responsible here for an unjustified hatting. Again, after Bugs and I suggested it, Ian did it, and Walt enforced it. Yet you attack me. Who are you, I wonder? You go from accusing me of hatting a thread of dubious value in most people's eyes to "advocating" the hatting of such a thread. Looking at your "contributions", they are almost entirely against me. Is rhat why you registered an account? Is advocating the closure of a thread, without closing it, now to be forbidden?

The rest of the "evidence" you hide above shows that when opposed, I don't edit war regarding closings, such as the case where I thought the Boer War OP might be the user called the Nazi troll. Another user reverted me, and said he didn't think it was actually the same troll, and that was it.

Yes, I have restored edits of mine that were refactored. But no edit warring on my part. No childish stalking or pointy attacks. (For example, Count Iblis and I frequently disagree, but also contribute civilly without seeking to ban each other.) In the meantime I have provided plenty of actual contributions to the project. Hours worth of work on the African nation question, and the Eastern Slavic question.

What have you done? I think I have said enough. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This post is a good example of the same kind of problematic behavior you display at the reference desk. Excessive focus on procedural issues and minutiae while largely not addressing the larger issue at all, paranoid and unfounded accusations regarding people's motives (I have thousands of edits and have been registered since 2005...so no, I did not create this account to harass you, and I made my added evidence here as clear as possible, with a boldface header and located right at the top), and a complete disinterest in the fact that many people see fundamental issues with the way you approach things. Even among your supporters here, no one has argued that these closings, and a general mindset toward closings that is as broad is yours, is a good thing. And I acknowledged many times that you also make many unambiguously good contributions, and specifically tried to find a solution that wouldn't jeopardize that - and I think I did. Unfortunately no one here has even responded to it. I don't suppose you'd be open to voluntarily leaving hatting questions to others who follow less controversial criteria... -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote the unsigned comment above, I was wandering... Only to find out it was Medeis. What's up with that bit of indent confusion, Medeis? El_C 09:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was simply one post with a formatting error, not an unsigned post which I immediately responded to. And my apologies to WaltCip, my confusion was to look at the last in a series of edits and to assume they all belonged to the same editor. μηδείς (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm still struggling to see where I apparently identified a sockpuppet and enforced an unjustified hatting... Did I pass an RFA in my sleep last night?--WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fairly sure Medeis is referring to User:Berean Hunter who did hard block the trolling IP range (not the IP who started the question) and protect the page. Special:Log/Berean Hunter. As for the indent, it's unfortunate and confusing but seems sa simple mistake so although I may be the master at making a big deal out of things at times, I don't see it's likely to be productive here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative...except the "...enforced an unjustified hatting" interpretation further up. I removed the trolling IP's last edit per DENY but this should not be taken as an endorsement either for or against the hatting. I left that as a matter for the editors there to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think This link provides some necessary additional evidence people need to decide what to do about this situation. --Jayron32 10:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with that. Even if you think some sort of action against Medeis is warranted, it's unlikely it'll be achieved here. A simple read of this thread, and the connection with the disputed post on RD/L is enough to tell you that. BTW this also means I'd support closing of this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I read some of the discourse between editors on that ref desk talk page and I would say that it would put off both established editors as well as newcomers. Clearly, it is an unhealthy environment. I believe this ANI post may have been an attempt to remedy that based on the filer's interpretation of Guy's advice. ANI was one of the options listed. Probably time to try one of the other options...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Honestly the ref desks would be a nicer place if more people *would* close down discussions promptly. Its the Mos Eisley of wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support closing this much-ado-about-not-much discussion, as the question's poster (as noted below) has provided clarification that could take the inherent guesswork out of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Return of the OP

The OP has returned and clarified his question, so I have reopened the thread, leaving the side-discussion closed as moot. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about one incident. It is about a long-term pattern of behavior. As I have said elsewhere, I have serious reservations about singling you out for your inappropriate hatting and deletion when [A] others are doing the same thing, and [B] a literal reading of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks allows the disruptive behavior. Given those two mitigating facts, I do not think that administrative sanctions against you are justified. That being said, your behavior (and the behavior of several others) on the refdesks has been disruptive, you have shown yourself to be unwilling to stop despite severe pushback from the other refdesk regulars, and undoing the closing after someone reported you at ANI for it in no way makes your ongoing disruptive behavior moot. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Advice

I choose not to express an opinion about whether the behavior of Medeis/μηδείς requires any sort of administrative action at this time. Others have weighed in on this, and I support whatever the consensus is.

That being said, in my opinion the following is glaringly obvious:

1. The reference desks -- all of them -- are toxic and have been toxic for a while.
2. The help desk and the village pumps are not toxic.
3. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the reference desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something involves non-administrators attempting to control the behavior of other editors without going to dispute resolution or asking for an uninvolved administrator to intervene.
4. This is not a "one editor is causing all of the trouble" sort of problem. There are multiple editors who attempt to control the behavior of other editors, a much larger group that keeps asking them to stop doing that, and a few who egg them on and call for even more self-appointed refdesk policemen.
5. We also have troll problems on the refdesks, yet the help desk and the village pumps have far fewer problems in this area. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the ref desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something is troll feeding, which includes attempting to control the behavior of other editors as well as the traditional refusing to ignore the trolls.

I have, what I believe to be a solution.

I have asked, repeatedly, that we at the refdesks try my solution as a limited time (30 days or so) experiment.

The experiment never gets done because those who attempt to control the behavior of other editors on the refdesks refuse to stop, even temporarily.

Here is my proposed solution to this problem:

• Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
• Apply the standard rules that apply to all pages on Wikipedia. In particular, apply WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC.
• Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
• Let Wikipedia's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of WP:DRR and WP:ANI and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates WP:TPOC or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.

What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will not post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as an appropriate place to post the RfC.

Finally, I really don't see anything that ANI can do to fix this. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we just send the refdesk to MfD and have a straight up or down on the whole thing? Seems easier. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

<shows up here straight from the refdesk> Delete and salt, then nuke the site from orbit. (I'm not serious, but I really believe Guy is on to something with his proposal.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting that [A] there is strong resistance to trying it for 30 days. [B] those who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who insist on controlling the behavior of others. [C] who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who keep being criticized for inappropriate hatting and deleting, yet vow to continue doing it anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. That is a truly remarkable statement. You are pushing strongly for changes that, according to you, stand no chance of community consensus. One thing is certain, such changes will not be passed on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why you would find this to be remarkable. I have proposed what is, in my opinion and the opinion of several other refdesk regulars, a good solution. I acknowledge that the consensus so far is against even trying my proposed solution as a limited-time experiment. I agree to abide by the consensus even though I disagree with it. I presented my solution in the hope that I may some day persuade enough people to change the consensus. What would you have me do? Pretend that the consensus is right when I think it is wrong? Refuse to abide by the consensus just because I think it is wrong? Post an RfC that I believe will be a waste of effort? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Guy, the sentence he quoted does carry an implication that you're engaged in WP:ADVOCACY because it says you want to accomplish something without going through the normal channels. I don't see it as a problem, however, because it's advocacy for a change in WP policy, it's a change that is obviously intended to improve the project and it comes from an editor who is obviously here to contribute to the project. It's just an "it sounds bad" kind of thing, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This has been proposed before, but the problem is that there aren't any special refdesk rules, just a brief summary of general policy at the top of the page. So WP:DISCLAIMER, WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc., would still apply. And frankly, we are a lot more lenient in regards to those policies than anywhere else in the rest of the project. I am not sure how anarchy will help any supposed toxicity. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• What part of "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"[18] are you having trouble understanding? If, as you claim, standard Wikipedia policies apply, then it seems to me that you should be held accountable for multiple violations of WP:WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC. The reason that I wrote the words at the very top of this section were because I assumed that you had a good-faith belief that what you have been doing is allowed under the "reference desk guidelines" (specifically, the part that says "It should be noted that the Wikipedia talk page guidelines apply to the reference desk, both for posting questions and for responding to questions, unless these guidelines clarify that they do not apply"). If this isn't the case, please explain your ongoing disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I drafted a response to Medeis saying "Guy Macon drew attention to special refdesk rules in his post of 05:02 Thursday", but before I had a chance to save it he himself drew attention to them in a rather aggressive manner. 5.150.74.242 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT isn't going to apply because it refers to "improving an article or building the encyclopedia". WP:TPOC doesn't mention hatting. 5.150.74.242 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What part of

" If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors"

are you having trouble understanding?

BTW, Further guidance about hatting is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions.

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing applies to any page anywhere on Wikipedia. The correct quote is "disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia". The purpose of the reference desks is to help build the encyclopedia, plus refdesk discussions often lead directly to improvements in specific articles. Disrupting the refdesks is definitely against the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what Guy said directly above me, and was about to say the same exact thing until I saw he beat me to it. The refdesk is part of the encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

One Editor’s View of the Problem

I will comment briefly, mostly to agree with User:Guy Macon. It isn’t entirely clear whether the original poster actually wants to impose a restriction on User:Medeis or simply wants to discuss. (A major problem here, at WP:ANI, is editors who want to discuss, typically in a hostile fashion, rather than requesting actual administrative action. In this respect, WP:ANI is like the Reference Desks, in being toxic, but is unlike the Reference Desks in having sanctions.) I have sometimes been active at the Reference Desks, and sometimes have ignored them for periods of weeks.

In my opinion, the real problem at the Reference Desks is editors who take the Reference Desks far too seriously, and who therefore think that things need to be done about them. Taking the Reference Desks too seriously is a self-fulfilling prophecy; insisting that there is a problem, either one particular post, or in general, is the problem. Also, as User:Guy Macon says, the Reference Desks have their own trolls. The trolls are fed by the tendency of some Reference Desk posters to get into a blather about the trolls. The trolls, of course, mostly come in from IP addresses, and occasionally from throw-away accounts. The usual response, which is the usual and appropriate response on Wikipedia talk pages, is to semi-protect the page or pages. However, a few regular editors, whom I refer to as RD “idealists”, think that this is the wrong answer, and that the Reference Desks are special, a special outreach of Wikipedia to unregistered editors, and that locking out the unregistered editors is the wrong answer. This results in heated discussion, which probably feeds the trolls. All of this is just one more example of how RD regular editors cause a problem by insisting that there is a problem that must be solved.

In any case, insisting that there is a problem that needs to be solved, whether it is threads that need hatting, or User:Medeis, is what causes the problem, and is why the Reference Desks are toxic.

I agree with User:Guy Macon that a real answer would be for the RD regulars to stop trying to control the behavior of other editors, and would add that they should also stop worrying so much about how to fix the Reference Desk problem. The discussion of how to fix the Reference Desks is the Reference Desk problem. As to the original topic, User:Medeis, she should stop hatting and deleting threads, where her actions do more harm than good, but the original poster should just leave her alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think most of it is quite correct. However, I disagree about how significant what Medeis is doing is. Do you not agree that closing a new questioner's question is likely to chase him off from using the Reference Desk (and potentially Wikipedia in general) again? And that that is fundamentally antithetical to the RD's purpose, and diminishes its value as a resource? At ten (again, IMO) unjustified closings a months, we're potentially talking about hundreds of people affected here. I find it hard to believe that taking administrative actions while simply brazenly ignoring established procedure and consensus in a way that affected this many people would be tolerated in any other area of Wikipedia.

And I'm not sure this is relevant to your point in the first paragraph, but I originally posted this at WP:AN, not AN/I, and it was moved here. And this is the first time I've ever personally brought an issue to either place. There may be a more appropriate place for this discussion, but I don't think it's the Reference Desk talk pages for exactly the reason you pointed out - the reference desk isn't special, and whether a type of behavior is acceptable there should be decided by the community at large based on general Wikipedia guidelines and principles, not just by the reference desk regulars among themselves based on their own self-imposed rules of RD conduct. Also I did originally bring this up there, and consensus was unanimously against Medeis, but (s)he still re-hatted it twice anyway. I don't know where to turn at that point besides to admins. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

pinging User:Robert McClenon so you know I replied to this since it's been 24 hours plus and I'm not sure you're still following this -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Elmer Clark - It appears that I was just pinged because I failed to comment on a response. Apparently the OP thinks that it is important to discussions here that back-and-forth continue at length. I will respond shortly, but pinging me because I failed to get into an argument seems like an effort to continue an argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see a specific administrative action asked by the OP (nor a general administrative request such as for administrative attention). What does the OP want, other than for me to say something (and this thread isn't my thread, but the OP's and Medeis's and the community's). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry if my pinging was inappropriate, I thought it was standard procedure to do so when you were replying to someone and there was a good chance they might not see your reply (in this case, because I replied to you so long after your comment). You're certainly free not to involve yourself any more. To be clear, the specific administrative action I am requesting comes at the end of my addendum to the original post - Medeis being banned from closing reference desk discussions. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(Ah, I realize now my wording was ambiguous and could be taken to mean I pinged you because you were taking too long to reply. It wasn't that, it was because my own reply came so late you might not have seen it.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is not the best place for this discussion, but I just wanted to pipe up to say that as a long time Refdesk user (Mostly under my old username:APL) I agree strongly with Guy Macon's analysis above.

There's a huge set of written and unwritten rules that dictate proper behavior and God help any question-asker that violates them. Deletion and hatting is the most visible aspect of it, but you can also more subtly browbeat newbies too. (Did the question-asker ask an obviously US-centric question without actually specifying the USA? Let's all lecture them about it!) Add to all that a pervasive suspicion of IP editors, and it feels like there's a real hostility towards new users.

Of course, the existence of this hostile attitude makes it a rich and entertaining target for actual trolls, so the problem is self-reinforcing.

Whether Guy Macon's proposed fixes would fix it, I'm uncertain.

ApLundell (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We could, you know, try it for 30 days and see whether it works. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stick to 0RR 1RR w.r.t. non-vandalism edits on the Ref Desk

Editing the Ref Desk is not similar to editing a Wiki article, there is far less need to revert outside of vandalism. There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate, and it's these sorts of actions that can get reverted. So, I propose that we all stick to 0RR 1RR when it comes to editing the Ref Desk as far as non-vandalism edits are concerned. We stick to 1RR 2RR w.r.t. dealing with the edits of the OP of a question. So, if you hat a question but the OP reverts you then you can revert to your hatting (even if the OP is a regular, the idea is that an OP will typically be less objective than others). Note that the OP would already be in the wrong when reverting the hatting, as he/she would need to stick to 0RR 1RR, but most questions are asked by non-regular IPs who won't know about these rules. If most regular sticks to these rules, then all inappropriate questions will end up being hatted without creating much drama. Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: as pointed out in the comments below the original proposal invoking 0RR was wrong, so I corrected the text by changing X RR to (X+1) RR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I question your statement: There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate.

Why do we need to hat anything? I know I've done a little bit of it myself, but on reflection I think hatting is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. Firstly, it actually highlights that which is purported to be hidden, so that's a complete wank. Secondly, nothing is gained by hatting. Thirdly, it's an open invitation for reversion and edit warring.

So someone asks an "inappropriate" question. So what? Best to just leave it alone, or explain to the OP why it's not appropriate, and then just move on. Consider a RL ref desk: Someone rocks up and asks a question that is beyond the remit of the desk. What does the librarian do? Turn back time and pretend the client had never existed? Throw a shroud over the client to hide them from view? No. They just say that they can't answer that question, and maybe suggest where would be a better place to ask. Then on to the next client. Simples.

Now, sometimes answers can get somewhat off-track, and there may be a case for hatting a section of a thread that is really not useful to the OP or anyone else. But as for hatting questions - no way. I'd rather delete a seriously offensively inappropriate question outright, than hat it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you make a good point here. But apart from the hatting issue, whatever we do on the Ref Desk, unless it's reverting vandalism, one should be able to stick to 0RR. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion. Would you prefer that approach to hatting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Deletion means removal, not just pretending to hide it behind a hat. There should be a high threshold for removal, but some questions would undoubtedly surpass it. Merely hatting a question actually highlights the question rather than downplaying it, human nature being what it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My main point is to stick to 0RR, not whether hatting or deletion is better. Suppose the issue of what to do with a problem post would arise then under 0RR it would tend to be sorted out in the best way possible with the least amount of friction anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that once someone hats something, it should stay hatted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because you can then remove the hat and decide to do something else (if anything) with that post. But when you do that the editor who hatted the question cannot revert back to the previous version, as that would violate 0RR. So, for an edit war to go on and on would requite more and more different editors to step in and undo each other's edit, but there are only a handful of regulars at the Ref Desk, so that's not going to happen. Count Iblis (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not 0RR then, it's 1RR. And consider this: user A hats or deletes. User B unhats or undeletes. Why does user B get to "win"? What's special about user B that his opinion overrides user A's opinion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What's special is the fact that user B just demonstrated that the close was not an uncontroversial or uncontentious close. It is the exact same principle used at WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So it should then be taken to the talk page. However, if you want to literally use 0RR, then no one can be allowed to unhat or undelete until it's been decided on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis, could you please edit your comments and the section title to reflect the fact that you are proposing 1RR and not 0RR? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Where was this decided?

Re: "The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion",[19] Where was this decided? Could someone please post a link to the RfC or other discussion where the Wikipedia community (not just the refdesk regulars) decided that this was OK?

WP:CONLIMITED is quite clear on this:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay."

Whenever I bring this up, someone replies accusing me of saying that no removals are allowed. I have always been clear that removals on the refdesks are allowed in cases specified by existing policies and guidelines, particularly WP:DISRUPT and WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the long-standing rules against giving professional advice and about not asking questions whose purpose is to invite debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this thread has strayed from its origins. The OP was trying to WP:HOUND a specific editor. Everything after that is misplaced. ANI is not the place to decide what is going to happen to the ref desks. As a couple of us have suggested a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion should be started. Then notices can be placed in various places to generate as full of a discussion as possible. An alternative is a RFC but, IMO, this has gone on so long that a CD is preferable. We can continue to spin our wheels here but, eventually, these threads will archived with nothing having been finalized. As with my request about the original thread I suggest this be closed. Then the discussion can be resumed at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your repeated accusations about my motives. I think I've given you a very good explanation for why I've brought this up here, and accusing me of "trying to hound someone" nonetheless is a clear violation of WP:AGF. It's also absurd on its face given that, as you've pointed out, I'm much too inactive here to be involved in any ongoing personal disputes with other editors. I believe I've only interacted with Medeis once before ever, and it was about (essentially) this same issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And if this is the wrong place for this - perfectly possible, as I pointed out in the very first sentence of my post - wouldn't the correct solution be to move it rather than to close it? I think consensus from the comments here is that there definitely is an issue with Medeis's behavior, but I didn't go about addressing it properly. I would hope more experienced editors would work with me on that instead of just closing it - it's not a good thing if the avenues for addressing problems on Wikipedia are de facto only available to experienced users because anyone making procedural mistakes simply gets their issue tossed out regardless of the merits. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you're after a topic ban (say), you should just check the Banning policy where it says that you should make you proposal at WP:AN (preferably), or WP:ANI. So, in summary, this is a legitimate place for this discussion, but perhaps you need to start afresh with a direct proposal rather than just a general discussion. Providing diffs of disruptive (or perceived disruptive) behaviour would be essential, I can help with that, so please, if you feel dissuaded by the bureaucracy here, don't let that stop you. There are many here willing to help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Elmer, the suggestion to ban Medeis from hatting/closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q's is a good one, as she has shown a complete lack of judgement in when to do so. You should make that into a formal request, and I will support it. As for the accusation of you acting improperly in bringing the issue up here, I completely disagree. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm concerned about bringing this up again in a new post though because at least one user (User:MarnetteD) already seems convinced that I'm hounding Medeis, and I'm afraid starting a whole new discussion somewhere else would just reinforce that. Also I did provide diffs in the collapsible box in my "addendum" above, you may have missed that Rambling Man (is there a better/more prominent way I can format that? Medeis seems to think it wasn't prominent enough as well). -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The outcome I really don't want is for this discussion to be closed because of my procedural errors/confusing and bad formatting/the perception that I'm hounding Medeis/etc without any ruling being made based on the merits, and then Medeis forever being able to cite this discussion as "proof" that this issue has already been looked at and addressed if anyone ever brings this up again. Advice on how to avoid that would be greatly appreciated... -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe diffs are included right at the start of the discussion, in most cases. But there is a certain irony if this thread is closed because it wasn't worded properly, when Medeis closes threads for that reason, too. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support a topic ban banning Medeis/μηδείς from closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q, with the option of later doing the same to other editors if it is determined that their closing/deleting is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You're inviting the Nazi ref desk troll and/or the Vote(X) troll to raise holy hell anytime their garbage gets deleted - and to punish Medeis if that's the user doing the deleting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure? There's still literally every other Reference Desk user available to close obviously disruptive threads. And Medeis can easily avoid being "punished" by simply...obeying the sanction. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously disruptive threads need to be closed fast, and it doesn't really matter who does it. Why, oh why is this discussion even happening when the community - agreed procedure for dealing with this problem has not been tried first? See this comment:

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the reason why what we are doing isn't working is that we are not following the existing community - agreed guidelines, which are:

• Whenever you remove a post report on the talk page that you have done this or (if you are removing a troll post from Soft Skin which includes mention of any or all of gas chambers, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews and National Socialism) identify it in your edit summary. 86.173.152.150 (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.217 (talk)

• • "Not working" - compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It works great for you because of your phobia against giving "professional advice"; a site that looks extremely unprofessional is the ideal site for you because you then know that no one is going to construe anything from such a site as being "professional advice" (not that you are in the habit of giving professional advice but the mere thought that you may have inadvertently given professional advice may keep you awake at night) :) Count Iblis (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC) .
      • It's not a phobia, it's a rule, and I had nothing to do with its establishment. If you don't like that rule, take it up with the Foundation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
        • One thing doesn't exclude the other. As a doctor you know that you need to adhere to very rigorous hygiene rules when engaging in certain medical procedures. But if you then get obsessed by sticking to such rules even when it's not necessary and tend to argue on nebulous grounds why such rules still apply, you may be suffering from OCD. Count Iblis (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          • What has that got to do with not allowing professional advice on Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
            • There are in principle valid reasons why you would not want professional advice to be given on some website. However, these reasons come with certain assumptions that have to do with there being a real problem. The way the Ref Desks operate in practice makes them quite unlikely places for anyone to ever get any serious advice like legal advice or medical advice from. It's like pretending that a Kindergarten in an academic institution and then fighting about how to stick to proper academic standards when there is little more to it than brawling Kindergartners. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
              • I do not buy that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Nor do I, and it does not accord with the intent of the WMF policy. In fact, it subverts it entirely. No professional advice, period. Anything that violates that rule should be closed down, by any editor, whether or not some critics see them as "self-appointed moderators", and re-opening such a closed thread is behavior suitable to be brought to ANI for sanctioning. There is no possible way to enforce the WMF policy without actually enforcing the policy, and that is not a task that can only be done by admins -- like enforcing BLP or copyvios, any editor can enforce it. Some in this discussion appear to want the WMF "no professional advice" policy to be magically enforced by fairy dust and good will, in the face of a documented history of trolling, but that hasn't worked, and won't work. If the community is not going to allow the RefDesk to be self-policed by those who spend their time there, then it should be shut down entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
                  • A fundamentalist interpretation devoid of the real issues is always going to cause problems. We've seen in the past how giving editors carte blanche to enforce BLP led to disaster. The reason was that you could now invoke BLP in an entirely unreasonable way to get your way in an editing dispute that had nothing to do with BLP. That problem was only sorted out later when the BLP noticeboard was created. But in the meantime what happened was that a few editors appeared on the scene who were more interested in playing the cop, they did rack up a huge block list but they who also tended to be unblocked quite fast by Admins siding with them. We've had very polarized discussions here on AN/I about these editors the blocks and the unblockings. Count Iblis (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
                    • It sounds like you're describing Betacommand. The core problem with a guy like Betacommand is a lack of clear direction from the WMF about what the rules really are, and more importantly, why they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal

Proposal. The behaviours at the ref desks have been out of control for a long time now. It was a mistake that Arbcom did not look into it as a result of previous cases, including TRM's. They should do so now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• You don't need to propose. If you want to go to ARBCOM, go to ARBCOM and make a case. They'll either accept or reject it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is perfectly legitimate to first discuss a proposal before filing an arbcom case. If a bunch of people say that you have no chance, you might not want to file. If a bunch of people say that it looks like a good idea, you might decide to file based upon that. Also, the exact wording of your filing is important, and should be happerd out before filing. For that, I suggest writing up a a draft in userspace and inviting comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I will Support the filing and opening of an ArbCom case concerning behavior at the Reference Desks. This should have been taken up previously, but still should be taken up. The scope of the case does need to be stated properly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Two kinds of disruption occur at the refdesks—pushback from the liberty crowd when discussions are sensibly closed, and pushback from the liberty crowd when trolls are reverted. Arbcom cannot provide a solution that is not based on a community decision about what is acceptable, so nothing productive will occur until a massive RfC establishes the purpose of the refdesks and whether any limits apply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This could also be stated that "disruptions occur on the ref-desk when a small group of users aggressively misinterpret the rules to remove or shut down legitimate questions." depending on who you think is in the right. Getting clarification on such issues, or determining a way to make them them no longer an issue, might just be a service arb-com could provide.

However, I think we'd need to all be prepared for the possibility that they'd decide that the RefDesk has outlived its usefulness. ApLundell (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me (and I think it's clear that someone other than me should be making the proposal). However, I would hope that it would not turn into a vague discussion of the "general culture" of the reference desk during which Medeis's specific behavior isn't addressed, which IMO goes above and beyond the broader problems plaguing the reference desk as a whole, and is a problem that can be tackled with much simpler measures than fixing everything wrong with the entire RD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question particularly for User:Dweller: Would standard discretionary sanctions applied to the ref desks help? Is been a long time since I've looked at them and I was never very involved (and one doesn't like to second-guess the committee too much) but if the problems described above are described accurately then DS seems a fairly likely part of the outcome of a full case. Would that help? Or would it just create an environment where new editors' Wikipedia experience starts at AE? GoldenRing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  Possibly/probably. Arbcom could also usefully help determine whether the RefDesks really are exempt from usual policies or guidelines. And, strongly, the problem editing isn't coming from newbies. It's RefDesk regulars sniping at each other and at questioners and disagreeing about 'the rules'. Longstanding editors and administrators who ought to know better behaving like mastodons. It's like a bloody playground, has been for ages and ages and ages, has spilled into ArbCom's turf on several occasions and each time it's not been addressed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• I hope this doesn't happen. The refdesks are usually a saner place than the rest of Wikipedia. Medeis is a knowledgeable refdesk contributor whose presence makes the place smarter, so I want for her to keep participating. And I'd rather that the broader Wikipedia dispute resolution bureaucracy simply stay away from a part of the project whose dysfunction is less severe than the part that's being proposed to fix it. I remember another one of these discussions where Medeis made some points about WP policy interpretation which I thought were philosophically at odds with how the project works at its best, and that her recurring conflicts with other contributors might follow from that. So I've thought that informal discussion or mediation might bring out better understanding and maybe compromise about those issues. I'd like to help with that if possible, though my editing opportunities are very limited these days. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What questions would you specifically request the arb-com look into? I'd like to suggest the following : - Does the reference desk still serve a purpose proportional to the effort put into it? - Do the Ref Desk guidelines hold any weight, and should they be enforced? - What should be done about questions that do not strictly contravene the rules, but about which there is disagreement on whether they are legitimate questions or trolls? ApLundell (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration explains that Arbcom will not decide what should happen at the refdesks. The policies and guidelines I am aware of focus on the encyclopedia and Arbcom will rule on whether editor behavior aligns with those procedures. I am not aware of any rules regarding the refdesks so Arbcom cannot help. However, I can answer your last question. Participants should understand that pursuing freedom or personal enjoyment is not the purpose of this website, and should already know that there have been many cases of trolling or otherwise inappropriate commentary. Therefore, the correct procedure is to accept any close or removal that could be construed as good faith. Only revert when it is believed the close was itself trolling or a blatantly misguided me-too action from a new participant. Even then, a close should be reversed only when pursuing the discussion would be beneficial—do not revert a close merely becauses like or freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So individuals can make up arbitrary rules ("Questions about sexuality are self-evident trolling.") and then enforce them as long as they might be doing it in "good faith"? That can't possibly be right. ApLundell (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether any editor has carte blanche to misbehave just because it's on the Reference desk rather than the encyclopedia. ArbCom can and does deal with misbehaviour on talk pages as well. The correct procedure is to follow the community - approved "Reference desk guidelines" (see section above). I don't think good faith should be the criterion because it raises the potential for argument ("Sorry, guv, I didn't know it was against the rules, I did it in good faith.") 81.151.101.13 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The above claim is factually incorrect. The special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce were never approved by the community. They were written and are being enforced by a small group of editors who never asked the community to approve what they are doing or to appont them as the refdsk police. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

These guidelines were adopted when the Reference desk was reconstituted in 2006. Prior to adoption there was discussion on the talk page, as can be seen from the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus. 81.151.101.13 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit similar to how "not truth" was for a long time the de-facto "consensus" on verifiability here on Wikipedia. There was actually never a consensus about it, just the claim that it was so and then you got many editors who would support the status quo due to a lack of a good alternative. Or take the issue of gay marriage in the real world. The opponents have cited the many thousands of year's old consensus that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But did that consensus ever get established based on a detailed analysis of gay relationships? Of course not, such relationships were taboo until just a few decades ago. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, 81.151.101.13's claims are factually incorrect. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline (later renamed to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines leaving a redirect) was created on 8 December 2006‎. Shortly after that, Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules was created as a content fork of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, then nominated for deletion in the MfD that 81.151.101.13 linked to above. The "discussion on the talk page" (the MfD) was a discussion about the seperate, content fork page, not about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline(s). Futhermore, 81.151.101.13's claim that "Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus" is also factually wrong. See WP:LOCALCON.

Given the apparent familiarity with Wikipedia policy, the ability to search for ancient MfDs,. the apparently deliberate multiple factually wrong claims, and the edit history (2 edits total), WP:DUCK tells me that 81.151.101.13 is a sockpuppet. The question is, is he a sockpuppet of one of the refdesk regulars who have taken on the role of self-appointed moderators, or is he a sockpuppet of one of our IP-hopping refdesk trolls? My money is on the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy isn't telling the whole story. The result of the Mfd was to merge Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guideline. I do know the difference between a talkpage and an Mfd. There followed a comprehensive discussion of the proposals on both pages. The policy Guy links to actually says

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

You can see the scale of the discussion here: Special:Permalink/94890911. 81.151.101.13 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear quacking... The 11-year-old discussion 81.151.101.13 linked to above was among a handful of refdesk regulars who unanimously !voted to allow everything and did not discuss removing or collapsing comments at all. Again, zero evidence that the wider community ever approved the creation of self-appointed refdesk cops. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the original problem at the Reference Desks is or was, it is compounded by a few editors who are so determined to solve the problem that they create a problem in the source of solving it. This noticeboard certainly isn't the place to solve the problem. (However, this noticeboard does not effectively solve any problem that polarizes and divides the community.) An argument can be made and has been made that Medeis should be topic-banned from closing threads at the Reference Desk, but that doesn't appear to have consensus, and besides that would only address one part of whatever the problem is. If there is no consensus to take action here, either file an arbitration request and close this thread, or close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

SteveBaker's opinions

SteveBaker was a Ref Desk regular who made a large number of contribution. He has just left a note on the talk page to explain why he left a year ago, see here. On his talk page we can find a few comments from a year ago, like this one that make it clear that the problem is with self-appointed moderators. Now, I don't agree with SteveBaker on everything here, I don't think banning Medeis would be a good idea, but his the broader perspective on the problems is spot on; self appointed moderators imposing their rules is asking for problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If an editor is supporting and applying consensus policy, then they are not a "self-appointed moderator", they are an editor supporting and applying consensus policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine and good if you could provide a link to the discussion where the Wikipedia community agreed to the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce and a link to where the Wikipedia community further agreed that ordinary editors can perform deletions and hatting that would otherwise no be allowed under WP:TPOC or WP:DDE. Do you have such links? Because unless someone provides links RfCs or other discussions that I am not aware of, the special rules and especially the whole idea self appointed moderators imposing those rules looks like a classic case of WP:LOCALCON to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an RfC, and it's not an instance of LOCALCON, since there is a specific WMF policy against giving out professional advice which can be enforced by any editor, not just admins, just as the BLP and copyvio policies can be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the Ref-Desk are doing something totally different than the rest of Wikipedia, but policy is shaped by what goes on in the rest of Wikipedia. The ban on professional advice and how to act against violations cannot be interpreted precisely like we do when editing articles, so one ends up with some ad hoc agreements on how to go about these things. You'll then get people who'll act more aggressively against problems and sometimes they'll see a problem when others don't see a problem. Discussions can then escalate when questions and answers are hatted by one editor while other editors don't see a problem with the question and now see that their answers have been hatted. A very strict zero tolerance approach is good for editing articles, but it's not good for the Ref-Desk with the exception of removing obvious problem questions (which then wouldn't be controversial to do). Count Iblis (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly disagree. If anything -- because it's completely ancillary to the primary mission of Wikipedia -- the RefDesk needs to be even more strictly patrolled then articlespace does. In fact, with all due respect to the fine editors who labor there, Wikipedia would not be harmed in any way if the RefDesk was closed down entirely. Given that, extremely strict zero tolerance for violations of the "no professional advice" policy seems to me to be an obvious necessity, and I have absolutely no problem with editors enforcing the policy in that manner. Obviously, some disagree, but ArbCom is that way, and no one's filed a case request yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

...not to mention pro­fes­sion­als doing things you never would have imagined. EEng

You have to consider here that no real professional advice is typically given there (in the rare cases where there is such an issue it's going to be removed) the problem is usually purely formal. So, someone asks a question that is not meant as professional advice but it can be construed that way; the closing of such questions leads to tensions. I do agree that it's better to have clear cut guidelines that can be strictly enforced to the letter, but the way things are done now will always lead to ambiguities it's a recipe to get the sort of conflicts we see there. Professional advice has to be invoked in a well defined but reasonable way, otherwise virtually anything can in principle be construed as professional advice as today you have professionals doing virtually anything you can imagine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't allow this to be archived without an administrator making a decision

This issue has come to ANI at least a dozen times already, and if allowed to time out and archive will come back a dozen more times, with the more problematic editors emboldened by the lack of action. The Wikipedia community is pleading with you for help. Either help us or tell us that further requests for help will be ignored so we can go elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon - What are you requesting be done, anyway? There isn't a consensus for any action that has been mentioned, such as restrictions on Medeis. The alternatives that I can see are an ArbCom case, a centralized discussion at Village pump (Miscellaneous), or an RFC. We can see that nothing is being accomplished as it is. An ArbCom case could, first, impose discretionary sanctions, and, second, instruct the community to draw up standards. Alternatively, propose something. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am expecting an admin to close this, saying that there is no consensus for any administrative action, and advising those who post essentially the same complaint at ANI in the future that this answer is unlikely to change. Then we can point to that closing the next dozen times someone brings up essentially the same complaint, which different editors do on a regular basis. Either that or I am expecting an administrator to close this with some sort of administrative action (a restriction on a user, 1RR on hatting/unhatting, or maybe something else) designed to solve the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No single admin is going to make the kind of decision that is being requested. It will likely take a well-written RfC because this matter must be put to the community for consensus. Even if it ends up at ArbCom eventually, it will still likely need to go the path of allowing the community to make the attempted decision(s) first. Admins and ArbCom do not make policies...the community does.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Pages are constantly hijacked by edits from IP Addresses and Users

IPs

• 39.46.149.198
• 39.46.83.185

and User

• Torrentz4

are constantly spamming on ExtraTorrent, Torrentz and KickassTorrents. Kindly look into the matter asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeLucky (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Uw-spam3}} applied to each of the editors' talk pages. Let me know if it continues. I'll either block the editors or semi-protect the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate It is still happening. Kindly block the IPs/Users or semi-protect the articles for best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeLucky (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected all three articles for a week. It looks like there are various disputes over successor websites, and the spammy external links aren't helping matters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• @BeLucky: Yes you were (lucky)! Yesterday you hit WP:15RR on ExtraTorrent, and I'm not sure that what you were reverting would have come under WP:NOT3RR. This is not a criticism, just a suggestion to be mindful, and reach for RFPP or here, a bit sooner, eh? Thus avoiding any noticeboard entanglements, to paraphrase :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Problematic edits

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) There is this IP who is making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles. I been keeping an eye on this IP edits for awhile now, and the edits don't generally helping the articles at all, they don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP make very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and have been warned by several other editors about these edits, but continue to making questionable edits without explaining why. I left a comment try to explain why I have a problem with the edits, but didn't get a response. I have try again, but still didn't a reply, this editor has ignored warnings and continue making these unnecessary changes to articles. After the edits has been reverted, they returned to the article and restore the same changes.

Here are the edits in the past few months:

• Lil Boat - [20] [21] [22]
• True to Self - [23] [24] [25]
• Teenage Emotions - [26] [27] [28] [29]
• Woptober - [30] [31]
• Trapsoul - [32] [33]
• Long. Live. ASAP - [34]
• Hurricane Chris (rapper) - [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
• These Things Happen (G-Eazy album) - [41] [42]

These are the best evidence I can find from these diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Noting PaleoNeonate's message that they must communicate, I'll wait to see if they do. If they resume editing without responding, ping me. I actually think this is someone that has been blocked for disruptive editing before as an IP and evading but if they finally decide to communicate then I'm willing to be patient. If not, I'll block them for failing to engage and disruptive editing.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: The editor is still not responding, they are still editing and doing the same thing, here's the recent edits [43] [44], it's clearly they are ignoring the warnings. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Sometimes this is what's needed for editors to realize and finally react... — PaleoNeonate — 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thanks. The editor has been problematic since March, I try to be civil with this editor by explain why the edits are disruptive, but they keep ignoring my warnings. If I see this editor using another IP address and editing as before, I let you know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Majanikolic1 violating WP:NPOV

@Majanikolic1: is a WP:SPA that only edits Maja Nikolić and is clearly unable to edit neutrally. User been deleting sourced content because it could reflect negatively on Maja Nikolić from the article. (1 2 3 4 5 6), while also adding unsourced content in the article (1, 2).

User was warned about COI editing at talk page (User talk:Majanikolic1) but persisted with their agenda-pushing edits. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 114#Maja Nikolic on 2 May, but nothing came out of it other than a comment about the poor state of the article, which I agree with and made an attempt to add more references. The user in question stopped editing for awhile, so this was forgotten about. However, said user is back and still clearly WP:NOTHERE. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page for a month, with the advise for them to take their concerns about their biography to the talk page. El_C 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

86.141.32.128

Please can someone block this account.[45]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

They were given a final warning, and haven't edited since.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

South Korea

There is currently an edit war at the article South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about whether or not Korea was a tributary state of China, with users accusing each other of being sockpuppets, of nationalist POV pushing, and the like. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for engaging in an edit war, which is against the rules, and also misusing warnings. I got carried away.

"Yearly tributes" is not found in the sources. Also, Goguryeo's tributes are not as simple as that to make such a misleading blanket statement. Please see Talk:Goguryeo where there is a discussion going on about it.

Regardless, I think it would be better for me to just simply stop. No excuses for my aggressive behavior. I'll stop now, and accept the changes. Sorry for causing trouble. Maco8 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maco8: Serious question here – have you ever edited Wikipedia before under a different account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Maco8 as a sock puppet of Massyparcer (talk · contribs), who also used Burgershots (talk · contribs) to make similar edits, complete with accusations of Chinese nationalist POV-pushing. Should I semi-protect the article, too? From glancing at the article history, it looks like Massyparcer socks hit it fairly often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that semi-protection would be a good idea, since politically- and ethnically-motivated socking is particularly hard to control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that there was a dynamic IP also make against of Chinese nationalist POV-pushing at Materialscientist talk page and this diff, not just the sockpuppet User:Burgershots, so the semi-protection as disruptive editing maybe would be an good idea on that. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The length may be a bit too conservative, but I semi-protected it for a month. The recent protections have been relatively short, so I didn't want to jump to a really long protection despite the long protection log. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User false accused me of threatening a real person.

Champion falsely accused me of supposedly threatening Donald Trump only because I joked about how similar oir names are, the user then decided to speedily delete my user page, report my user name (without consulting me, and claimed it was/is a "threatening" name), and seems bent on blocking me yet never asked me anything or why I use my name. This seems like an obvious abuse of privileges bestowed upon the user to speedily delete a harmless user page where I talked about myself and made a single joke. Donald Trung (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:---Well, Sjb72 was the deleting administrator and Champion is hardly the one to fault.You may contact Sjb for further queries.Further, we don't like sarcasms etc. esp. coming from brand-new users.And you are better with changing the username.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO you should just ask for a rename. The fact that the username is by your own admission a nickname derived from but not your real name, and reference to Donald Trump mean it's always going to be problematic. The fact that this nickname is old doesn't really help things much. Ultimately as a clear reference to another living person who isn't your friend or relative, and a notable one at that (which he would be long before he was politically active, in fact probably was from when you the nickname arose hence why you knew of him in Australia), even if it isn't intended to mock said individual; means any of your actions could be as associated with them. I'm not commenting on whether this meets the standard for a forced username block, but there's nothing stopping you voluntarily requesting a rename. Also I can't see what was deleted but the fact it was deleted makes me think it did raise concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OP is currently posting nonsense 'speedy keep' rationales on various AfD's; I think we're being lead on by a daft troll. Can we rush a block on this and save a bunch of time and pain? I strike that; there's more of a competence issue that I'm seeing rather than malicious intent. Nate • (chatter) 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I was the deleting administrator of Donald Trung's original User page. The content was short, and from the content could be described as an attempt at humour at best, and at worst , a hoax or an attack page. I did consider changing the deletion reason, but decided to leave it as per the original CSD tag. Donald Trung, I strongly recommend changing your username; if you keep it as it is, you are going to be facing a lot of scrutiny from other editors. I would imagine that you will end up having discussions on this page repeatedly, and it really isn't worth the hassle. I expect you came to Wikipedia to help improve it (as did the rest of us), but at the moment you are getting a lot of drama, which if left unchecked, will probably cause you to leave. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agenda pushing by User:Wakebrew on paranormal-related articles

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

---

Wakebrew has a history of making POV edits at paranormal related articles. The articles affected are the following:

• Pyrokinesis
• Psychic
• Mediumship
• Paranormal
• Scrying
• Witchcraft

If you look at the recent history of these articles (i.e. Wakebrew's edits of the last couple of weeks) you will see the problem, and you will also see he has been reverted by multiple editors. He has recieved warnings from multiple editors regarding his non-neutral edits and was blocked for a week. Now the block has lapsed he seems to have picked up where he left off. This editor is virtually a SPA.

This report is not a defence of the current wording installed at these articles. Generally I think there are some improvements that could be made, and I had an attempt at Mediumship. It is my contention that Wikipedia's coverage of paranormal phenomena should be firmly presented in terms of beliefs and scientific evidence (rather than factual statements) and I have raised the issue about terminology at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mediumship.

However, whatever the current failings of the articles I don't think Wakebrew is having a moderating impact on these articles so I am hoping we can discuss imposing a topic ban in this area. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given that this is a continuation of a behavioral problem which has already led to a fairly substantial block, I've blocked the user indefinitely. This isn't intended to be permanent, but it's clear that they're refusing to listen to anyone and they can't continue to edit like this. As far as I'm concerned, they can be unblocked whenever they adequately address our concerns, but if unable to do so there's not much room to work with them. Swarm ♠ 05:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does OTRS accept telepathic unblock requests? EEng 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My crystal ball says... no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Hide an offensive edit

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

---

I don't know how to do it, but this edit should be hidden. Trackinfo (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Xx236's disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles

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

---

The short version: Over the past month, Xx236 has been editing disruptively on various Soviet-themed articles, most notably Vladimir Lenin and Talk:Vladimir Lenin. They are engaged in WP:Advocacy to push a staunchly anti-Soviet and anti-Lenin view that is far more extreme than those found in the WP:Reliable sources. They have been warned about this on multiple occasions and clearly are not listening. The only way to deal with the situation now is to ban them from editing Soviet-themed articles and their Talk Pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The long version: Since 19 April 2017 (a month ago today), User:Xx236 has begun twenty-three different sections at Talk:Vladimir Lenin, each containing a different complaint about the FA-rated article. They have also added unreferenced and poorly referenced trivia about the Polish anti-communist movement into the Lenin article itself ([46], [47], [48], etc) and argued that unreferenced additions should not be removed so long as they are "obvious facts" (?) ([49]). They have similarly bombarded other Marxism and Soviet-themed Talk Pages with section after section in quick succession (fourteen over at Talk:Joseph Stalin, five at Talk:Main Currents of Marxism, four at Talk:Red Army, six at Talk:Soviet Union, six at Talk:Anti-Katyn, six at Talk:Soviet Union in World War II, two at Talk:Socialist state etc). This is just getting silly and needs to stop. It clearly comes under the definition of WP:Disruptive editing.

If their complaints actually had merit then it would be a different kettle of fish, but they don't. Rather, XX236 is just making poorly worded and highly idiosyncratic claims: stating that Lenin was not a Marxist ([50]), that Christopher Hill cannot be a legitimate historian because he was a Marxist ([51], [52]), and that the Soviet Union was not a socialist state ([53]). Other comments are totally incomprehensible ([54]) or are criticisms of statements made in reliable sources ([55]). They reject various WP:Reliable sources produced by academics and scholars as unsuitable on the most spurious of grounds: Louis Fischer's work because he was a leftist writing in the 1960s ([56], [57]), Mark Sandle's because it had the word Socialism in the title ([58]), and Robert Service's because several Amazon reviews and a random Trotskyite website don't like it ([59]; [60]; [61]). At the same time they are repeatedly claiming that the Lenin article is biased in favour of its central subject and the Soviets ([62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66] etc) and that it does not deserve to be a Featured Article ([67]; [68]; [69]); this is despite the fact that it has been heavily scrutinised by many different editors during GAN, PR, and FAC only last year, none of whom thought it had a pro-Soviet bias.

Xx236 is engaged in WP:Advocacy. They make it abundantly apparent that they hold passionately anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet views ([70]), in part perhaps because they claim to have had Polish relatives killed by the Soviets [71] and grew up in the Soviet-backed Polish People's Republic ([72]). Clearly, they are seeking to use Wikipedia to spread the 'truth' of their POV, and are very concerned that anyone might develop views about a "good Lenin" ([73]). To this end, their proposed changes to the article consistently downplay or seek to delete anything that might possibly contribute to a favourable or at least not entirely hostile view of Lenin. At the same time, they are trying to add undue emphasis on anything 'bad' that Lenin and his government did, foregrounding these at the expense of the more balanced view that we get in the Reliable Sources. For them, the article is 'biased' because it does not promulgate their own view that Lenin was a terrible human being whose every thought and deed oozed nefariousness and malice ([74]; [75]) and who should be held responsible for everything that the Soviet Union ever did during the 20th century ([76]; [77]). Those who disagree with their proposed edits are dismissed as Soviet sympathisers ([78]) or generally treated un-civilly ([79]) (update: after initiating this ANI request they even labelled me "immoral and disgusting" [80]!) They are not here to build an encyclopaedia in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies; they are here to 'Right Great Wrongs'. This has been pointed out to them repeatedly, but they are refusing the get the point, and claiming that any accusation of advocacy is a "personal attack" ([81]; [82]).

Their constant posting has proved time consuming for myself and others — among them User:Jack Upland, User:Amakuru, User:John, User:Jimfbleak, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, User:Crossswords, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Britmax — to deal with. That their edits are disruptive has been pointed out to them by both myself ([83]) and Jack ([84]) but that has not stopped them. On 17 May, I raised the issue once more on the Lenin Talk Page, asking them to stop ([85]); several other editors chimed in to support me on this, and both Ian.thomson and Fortuna suggested taking the issue to ANI ([86]; [87]). Xx236 has taken no notice, accused his/her critics of trying to do "their revolutionary duty" ([88]), and continued posting new complaints at the Talk Page ([89]). At this stage it is abundantly apparent that Xx234 has absolutely no intention of desisting from their advocacy and disruptive editing. The only option left is for a ban to be introduced preventing them from editing Soviet- and Marxist-themed articles and their Talk Pages, which is what I propose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Update as of 28 May: It has just been brought to my attention that in 2009, Xx236 was given a topic ban for POV-pushing on other Central and Eastern European themed articles ([90]) and was subsequently given a temporary block for trying to evade that ban. ([91]) Their current advocacy and disruptive editing is clearly part of a broader problem and that—by this point—they should be well aware of what they are doing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. This assessment is wholly correct. I can't improve on Midnightblueowl's gloss, but I would emphasise that the main issues to me are the lack of communication and the poor quality of the edits; if either of thse factors was a positive one, it might cancel out the other. But they don't. And combined with the amount of energy other editors have spent- and fair play to them, that's far more than me- and wasted on Xx236, I have to support the proposed Tban. This should last until such a time that they can persuade the community that they are capable of neutrally editing the subject without mounting a soapbox. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Totally support topic-ban from the topic of the USSR, broadly construed to include not just the Soviet leadership but people who lived there, military campaigns involving the Red Army etc, and any topic ban to explicitly involve talkpages as well as articles themselves. I've seen this going on in the background since Vladimir Lenin found its way onto my watchlist during its FA review, and endorse ever word Midnightblueowl says above. Whether or not Xx236 (aka Xx234~enwiki) is acting in good faith is irrelevant; it's clear that they have an ultra-fringe POV that because Communist regimes committed atrocities, anyone who has anything positive to say about any aspect of anyone or anything connected to a Communist government is automatically an unreliable source and consequently no Wikipedia article can mention anything positive about any aspect of the USSR. (This isn't a standard we apply to any other topic; Nazi Germany, Harrying of the North, Genghis Khan, Cultural Revolution etc faithfully document what positives there are, and give due weight to the views of historians who feel that insert name of atrocity was exaggerated or justified.)

  On the specific topic of communism, it's sometimes easy to forget that significant parts of the world still have Communist governments and even many non-communist countries still have significant communist movements—"when you add up the positives and negatives the Communist Party was overall a force for good" is still a significant school of thought, not a fringe opinion like "Hitler was right" that's only held by a handful of cranks, and Wikipedia is obliged to give due weight to this school of thought. Despite the many, many times this has been explained, Xx236 appears incapable of understanding the difference of "my point of view" and "neutral point of view". ‑ Iridescent 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've just read most of Xx236's contributions at Talk:Vladimir Lenin and I've checked a good few of Midnightblueowl's links, and the tendentious POV-pushing and bulldozing IDHT are overwhelming. We clearly have someone here who has a visceral hatred for Lenin, Soviet Communism and anything related to the USSR - and their life's experience might well justify that. But we certainly can't have our Wikipedia articles turned into hate pieces, and I really cannot see any way this might be someone who can be brought round to the Wikipedia way of doing things. So that's a Strong Support for a topic ban from all pages associated with the USSR, broadly construed (especially as this appears to have been going on for a long time). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, and @Midnightblueowl: You did a pretty good job of keeping the long version so short! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Likewise. From the linked discussions its clear they are totally incapable of editing neutrally in the area. Even if they are right about Lenin not being a Marxist ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Nobody is born a Marxist, not even Marx" :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I would even block if this continues. — JJBers 14:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Hopefully a ban will deal with the problem at hand and that will be the end of it. However, if Xx236 attempts to evade a ban or goes and edits disruptively on other topics then I think that a total block will be inevitable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tban of this WP:TEND editing. There are other websites where this editor can grind their axe. MarnetteD|Talk 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this happen and I think Midnightblueowl's summary is excellent. For completeness, I am also pinging Gravuritas, who has been making somewhat similar points, though with a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and who has expressed support for Xx236 at least once or twice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thanks for the ping. Sorry, don't think MBO has given a fair summary of the situation. To someone with some knowledge of the history of Eastern Europe, the article is biased in Lenin's favour. To take a simple example, the article emphasises Lenin's anti-imperilist pronouncements and glosses over his many imperialist actions. Small edts, e.g by me, to begin to correct this slant are met by a snowstorm of resistance, in particular by MBO and JU. Xx236 appears to me to often be correct in his analysis, even if his way of working is somewhat grasshopper-like. JU has greeted him with scorn for his English, and MBO has been obstructive: e.g. describing one of Xx236's suggested edits as having 'multiple grammarical errors' when it only needed two 'the's to correct it. I wish Xx236 worked more slowly, and concentrated on one or two edits at a time, and I have previously suggested such on his user page, but I understand his frustration. The risk in banning him is that the current cosy cartel of editors who enthusiastically study Lenin and Soviet history, but ignore other external sources, will be left to govern this article. I, using somewhat different RS, will be continually outvoted and will accordingly give up. I would suggest a rap on the knuckles for Xx236, and another rap on the knuckles for those editors who have stifled him when he makes fair, constructive points.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas' statement that I criticised one of Xx236's additions because it contained "multiple grammatical errors" is untrue. That was actually a concern that I expressed about User:Staberinde's contribution [92], and (as the link shows) it was far from being my only concern about that addition. Myself and Staberinde subsequently cordially discussed the issue at the Talk Page and came to a compromise that we could all live with. It had nothing to do with Xx236 at all. Therefore, aside from the fact that Gravuritas' claim here is just totally false, it is also an issue that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction accepted. Sorry, have no time to check timeline.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I never "greeted him with scorn for his English" or "mocked" him as Gravuritas has claimed previously. In any case, this is a red herring, because language issues have been a minor factor, as anyone who looks at the Talk page can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, while I appreciate that this section is not designed as a discussion of Gravuritas' edits, Gravuritas has made the claim that their own edits have been met by a "snowstorm of resistance" and that I am "obstructive" and a member of a "cosy cartel of editors" who deserve a "rap on the knuckles" for our opposition to Xx236's edits. For this reason I think it important to give some clarification. It is true that I, and other editors, have opposed many of Gravuritas' edits and suggestions, just as we have opposed Xx236's. But this is because Gravuritas has also been engaging in many of the same disruptive behaviours as Xx236, albeit in a more articulate manner. Gravuritas began their activity on the Lenin article on 20 April 2017 (only a day after Xx236 reappeared) and clearly shares Xx236's fiercely emotional anti-Soviet perspective ([93]; [94]; [95] etc) and I believe that to be the reason that they regard "the article [as being] biased in Lenin's favour". Like Xx236, they have made additions to the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin article that are simply un-referenced ([96]), and have removed academically referenced information with which they happen to disagree because it could potentially cast Lenin in a slightly positive light ([97]). They have also repeatedly engaged in edit warring to make (often) idiosyncratic alterations to the article without consensus ([98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104] etc). In doing so they have made multiple false claims to bolster their position: claiming that a Talk Page discussion has backed them when it has not even taken place ([105]), making inaccurate statements about the history of the article ([106]; [107]) etc.

Rather than seeing their critics as people trying to keep a balance and uphold Wikipedia rules and regulations, they have repeatedly accused those who criticise or oppose their actions of being Lenin sympathisers ([108]), "apologist[s]" ([109]), "deniers of [Stalin's murders]", ([110]) and defenders "of the indefensible" ([111]), even going so far as to call on their critics to apologise to "Stalin's millions of victims" ([112]). Clearly, they do not care much for WP:Civility, and editors who disagree with them (for a variety of reasons) have been accused of being an "ignoramus" ([113]), a promoter of "biased garbage" ([114]), and "scum" ([115]; [116]). When confronted on this, Gravuritas' response has been to state that the Civility policy doesn’t count in certain scenarios and that they will not abide by it ([117]). This behaviour is evidently nothing new; they have been repeatedly censured for breaches of civility ([118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]) and their behaviour has been brought to ANI twice before, in July 2016 [123] and again in September 2016, when User:Spike Wilbury told them to clean up their act and behave in a civil manner ([124]) – clearly they have not done so. It is perhaps due to their general outlook and their similar patterns of disruptive editing that Gravuritas has developed some sympathy for Xx236 and has defended them when no-one else has. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Everyking (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. In fairness to Xx236, I think that many of this user's edits are good faith attempts to improve articles, unfortunately, Midnightblueowl makes a convincing case that the total pattern of behavior is disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't doubt the sincerity of Xx236's actions. I believe that they are motivated by a genuine desire to tell readers 'the truth', rather than any impish love of mischief. Unfortunately, that does not stop their edits from being any less disruptive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it isn't just a matter of good intentions; some (a few) of Xx236's edits do really seem to be helpful, but that does not prevent the user's overall behavior from having undesirable consequences. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support everything what Midnightblueowl said. Its not only about these topics but his whole attitude in communicating to other people, which he has a dissagreement with. There were 2 instances where he called my edits (adding articles into the See Also category) trash and other hostile choosing of words when trying to make an argument. English skills are no excuse here, he knows what he is writing.--Crossswords (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Xx236. And for Gravuritas. Being moderately more articulate and civil doesn't make his unacceptable edits any less of a cas of POV pushing. Bit of them need to be told to walk away and tlstol trying to use Wikipedia to promote their POV. oknazevad (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can not check everything above, but I looked at editing by Xx236 on the pages Lenin and Stalin, because that was allegedly the problem. Here are all his recent series of edits on pages Lenin [125], [126],[127] and Stalin [128]. I do not see anything even remotely problematic here, anything which would justify his topic ban. His talk page comments are indeed questionable, however I do not think they warrant a topic ban. I am looking at the diffs by the filer of this complaint, For example this comment - yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented. Or this - yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian. And so it goes (can't check everything). His only problem: he does not provide any sources to support his statements on article talk pages (but I think he provides acceptable sources while editing articles themselves). If this is indeed so seriously problematic, please bring it to WP:AE (the subject is under discretionary sanctions), but please provide at least 5-6 clear-cut diffs that are immediately problematic after looking at them. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I feel that you may be being a little generous with your assessment, there. You state that you see nothing wrong with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article, but they were adding unreferenced and poorly referenced material to an FA-rated article without trying to gain any consensus for its addition first. The material itself was more about anti-communist groups in Poland than it was about Lenin himself; it counts as WP:Trivia. That's clearly disruptive. As for your statements about Xx236's Talk Page comments, again I think you are being over-generous. You cite this comment and state that "yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented", but that isn't actually what Xx236 said. Xx236 stated that Lenin was involved in constructing Stalinism, not the "Soviet system". The two things are different (and it's not even as if the article ever denied that Lenin constructed the Soviet system of governance - indeed it talks about how Lenin did this at various points). Further, that particular link was not originally selected by me to demonstrate that Xx236 was making dubious claims (that Stalinism owed a fair bit to Lenin is hardly a controversial point); rather, it was selected because it demonstrates Xx236's view that the article was biased.
• You then state that "yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian". Aside from the fact that virtually every historian of modern Russian history has been challenged on various points by their peers (such is the nature of academic scholarship), Xx236 was not actually stating that Service's work had been challenged by a professional historian; rather, they were suggesting that it was bad because they found a Trotskyite website that gave it a poor review and because it had a couple of poor reviews on Amazon. That wasn't helping anyone; it was just an attempt to undermine the (academically referenced) content of the page (presumably so that Xx236 could then step in and start changing things). Their whole approach to interacting with others at the Talk Page has fallen well within the definition of WP:Disruptive editing and they have ignored every previous attempt to deal with the problem. A topic ban really is the last resort here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• PS: Apologies for being a nitpicker about some of your comments. I—like several others—have been dealing with Xx236's incessant disruptive editing for several weeks now and I really do think that something needs to be done about it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can see what had happen. There is another contributor on talk pages who repeatedly makes totally ridiculous comments like this: "There is no real evidence that the Moscow trials were "rigged" or that the saboteurs were not actually working to overthrow the Soviet leadership". That provokes Xx236 to became engaged in WP:SOAP-like discussions and make talk page comments that are now brought on this page as a proof of his misbehavior. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree that User:Claíomh Solais also makes some dubious Talk Page comments; they are clearly coming from a strongly pro-Stalin POV that is (in its own way) contrary to the WP:Reliable Sources. However, they have only been active recently on Talk:Joseph Stalin, not Talk:Vladimir Lenin. There has been virtually no interaction between Claíomh Solais and Xx236 (I can only find two Talk Page discussions where they have both contributed), and certainly no instances where Xx236 has directly responded to Claíomh Solais' comments (bar perhaps this confusing comment from 26 April). Thus, I think it somewhat misleading to state that Claíomh Solais' comments have "prokove[d]" Xx236 to edit disruptively. There is barely any connection between the two at all. Even if there were, the fact that there is one editor posting comments from a pro-Stalin perspective over at Talk:Joseph Stalin really would not excuse Xx236's disruptive editing to push an anti-Soviet POV on a whole host of articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the problem. I am looking at first three diffs ([384], [385], [386]) you provided as evidence of misbehavior by Xx236 on page Lenin. Here is first of them: [129]. Yes, that looks disruptive. However, one must look at the whole series of edits by Xx236 [130]. Is it really problematic? Yes, I would not make such edit, but this is hardly a reason for a topic ban. I can mostly see WP:SOAP like discussions on the part of Xx236 and several other users. A strong warning about it? Yes, sure. Topic ban? I am not convinced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• The addition of poorly referenced WP:Trivia into an FA-rated article is problematic, but I would agree with you that that alone would clearly not warrant a topic ban. Rather, the reason why Xx236 warrants such a ban is because for the last month they have been engaged in a relentless programme of WP:Advocacy and WP:Disruptive editing across a wide range of Soviet-themed articles. Their comments, as you note yourself, are problematic. That they have been repeatedly asked to stop and have flatly refused means that there is no other option left but a topic ban. The addition of the poorly referenced trivia in the Lenin article was just one, very small, part of this wider pattern of disruption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I quickly checked his comments on several talk pages and even responded. I do not see his comments as something really disruptive. But he is definitely frustrated and needs a wikibreak. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- I reviewed the discussion at Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#Xx236_-_Please_stop_with_the_disruptive_editing, plus others, and I have to say I agree with the proposal. Sample comment: "If I'm in a wrong place to discuss such subjects, so please do you revolutionary duty". What does this even mean?

Add to that the additions of editorialising to articles (sample), as well as the belief that the country has been teeming with street children up to the 1990s (diff of article move), and this seems to be a case of WP:CIR / clouded judgement. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My crime is Soviet/Russian historiography studies mostly the Great Patriotic War, forgetting the period 1939-41. Why don't you ask for citations but prefer to attack me here? The statement is obvious, there are hundreds of Soviet/Russian texts about the Great Patriotic War and much less about the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This not the place to discuss the page Orphans in the Soviet Union, but you have started so I'm responding. The page is about the street children and about orphans: Major contributors to the population of orphans and otherwise homeless children.... The majority of the text is about street children. Homeless children was a more general notion, it included orphans and non-orphans. The Russian article is about homeless children. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• This Wikipedia needs a basic discussion of Soviet subjects to remove possible bias and omissions. Such serious discussion is being replaced by a hunt on me. This Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Marxist-Leninist circle or a highschool in which students are bullied becaus ethey belong to an another culture.

This Wikipedia needs a feministic review of biographies of white male leaders eg. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin.

Midnightblueowl is a much better editor than me, but Wikipedia needs not only editing but also knolwdge and my knowledge is at least comparable. Midnightblueowl doesn't accept my critics, even if I'm right. As far no my opponents has declared knowledge of Russian language or of the whole subject - Soviet history. People who edit pages about everything, aren't able to be very competent in every field.

I have been accused to be pro-Polish, but the accusation failed. I have been accused several times to be wrong, but several of my opinions were right. I'm not going to discuss these absurd accusations. Learn and return.

Please remeber that all of your biased and false accusations will be preserved for ever. In 100 years a doctor thesis will be written - leftist censorship in English Wikipedia.

I'm 90% right so if you decide to topic-ban me, I'm leaving for the period of the ban.

What about the editors who have attacked me ad personam, eg. my language? Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits of Vladimir Lenin haven't been disruptiive, they are still there. Please change the misinforming name of the thread. What you do is immoral and disgusting.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think that anyone accused you of being "pro-Polish per se, Xx236, nor did they "bully" you because you "belong to another culture". Nevertheless, you have added WP:trivia about Polish anti-communists into the Lenin article, mentioned Poland in the Talk Pages, and made your anger regarding the Soviet treatment of Poland quite clear. Your experiences as a Pole have clearly influenced your view of the Soviet Union; and that's fine, but you can't let that interfere with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, as you have done. Your grasp of the English language is not perfect, granted, and while that has made some of your comments difficult to understand, the main problem is the general rambling structure and bizarre content of your comments, which has nothing to do with being a native English speaker or not ("Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin" being a classic example).
• Your above comment also demonstrates your tendency to view all your critics as ideologically motivated ("a Marxist-Leninist circle... leftist censorship in English Wikipedia") rather than as people seeking a neutral presentation of the information present in WP:Reliable sources. I have no doubt that there are editors on Wikipedia with a Marxist-Leninist or otherwise far left POV (I cited Claíomh Solais above) but unless all of the editors who scrutinised the article at GAN, PR, and FAC are secret communists eager to promote the image of the 'good Lenin', then I do not see how a highly biased article has been produced (as you claim). Ironically, while you accuse me of constructing a pro-Lenin article, others ([131]) have accused me of having crafted an anti-Lenin article and being part of a bourgeois disinformation campaign. I've made it quite clear that I am not a Leninist nor do I think that Lenin's rise to power was a good thing—the man was clearly an ideologically driven zealot quite happy to see thousands killed—and yet you repeatedly paint me and others as some sort of communist cabal simply for opposing your disruptive editing. It's rather frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, K.e.Koffman provides a single diff ("sample") by Xx236 instead of looking at the whole series of his edits on the page. So, the thing was sourced. Was it an adequate sourcing? I do not think so, but the statement was true and could be very easily sourced to something much better. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just because a statement might be true does not necessarily make it relevant or worthy of addition to an article (especially a Featured Article). One of the (many) problems with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article was that they were effectively WP:Trivia. Lenin was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. A significant portion (perhaps a majority) of the international communist movement look to him as a central ideological figurehead; there are thus statues and street names dedicated to him all over the world. In becoming a communist icon, he has also become a symbol that everything anti-communists despise, and they have reacted against him and his influence. Accordingly, there must be literally hundreds of thousands of potential facts about Lenin and his legacy that could be added to the article. That does not mean that we actually have to start adding them. Xx236 had simply cherry-picked a few random facts from Polish history and added them (without any attempt to gain any sort of consensus first); this sort of editing is disruptive. So on this particular issue, the problem is not that Xx236 merely added poorly sourced material; it is that they added said material to the article in the first place.Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is edit by Xx under discussion. Some of their changes are minor and non-controversial (that shows the user wants to improve the page), others are debatable. I think the Philosophers' ships absolutely must be included on the page, but the statement must be significantly rephrased and elaborated. As about the "legacy" insert, I agree it should not be included in this way, however this is just a minor content dispute, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think that you are trimming the issue down too much. The issue is not just about the addition of poorly referenced material into an article. It's about a huge campaign of disruptive editing spanning many different articles, and in particular their Talk Pages. The addition of poorly referenced material is just one small part of that broader disruptive pattern. In and of itself, that one small issue would not warrant a topic ban; but the broader pattern clearly does. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I checked his mainspace/article editing (4 pages) and his comments on 6 talk pages. I think he obviously has a POV (just like many others), but he wants to improve these pages, his talk page comments are frequently very much reasonable (I responded to some of them), and most important, he actually improves these pages, together with others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose on the same basis as has been outlined by My very best wishes and Gravuritas. The majority of the editors !voting here have had little in the way of contact with the user and are basing this ban on a select number of edits which don't even begin to reflect the many years of constructive gnoming Xx236 has put in. I'm not even going to claim that I haven't had a few content clashes with him, because I certainly have. This is a knee-jerk reaction to behaviour he ends up sorting out himself by cooling his heels off his own bat, and the purported rationale of bans of any form are not supposed to be punitive. Xx236's eye for detail and finding problems with content and reliable sources for improving articles make him an asset, not a liability. Eastern European subject area articles are rampant with POV pushers of all ilk. The number of seriously POV editors who have managed to avoid any form of ban is (almost) laughable. Punishing one predominantly constructive editor who has moments of flipping out is ludicrous in the face of the plethora of extremist civil POV pushers is ludicrous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that Xx236 should be given free reign to edit disruptively just because there are also other POV pushers out there. I also disagree with the statement that this is a "knee-jerk reaction". Xx236 has been asked repeatedly to stop their disruptive editing behaviours by several editors (including myself). They completely and utterly ignored that request. If the request for a topic ban is turned down then they will just keep on and on with this disruptive behaviour in the knowledge that they basically have immunity. That means that there will be lots more disruptive editing that myself and other editors have to spend time and energy dealing with. The whole thing is really rather damaging to Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, but I am not promoting any form of 'free reign'. A TBAN applying to this and 'related topics' broadly construed means a ban for Xx236 from involving himself from literally hundreds of articles on the Soviet Union, post-Soviet nation-states, etc... which most certainly does make such a proposal a knee-jerk reaction. These are articles where the user does his best gnoming using the talk page to point out contradictions, missing information, etc. He is not confident with his English and seldom actually edits the articles themselves, but leaves succinct missives on the talk page knowing that there are a number of editors who have the more obscure articles on their watchlists who will look into his observations and make appropriate changes. There are actually very few instances of his observations being unconstructive, and he is certainly made aware of this by other editors when consensus is against him. Issue a stern warning, or have the user temporarily blocked from the article in question, but don't conflate sporadic incidents of the occasional silly piece of WP:DE with WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE with the objective leading inevitably to the elimination of a productive editor. Again, I would reiterate that I have great respect for the majority of editors commenting here, but I also know that they have virtually no knowledge or contact with Xx236 outside of a limited range of articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Xx236 made more than 30,000 edits in this very wide subject area. His edits are usually very "gnomish", I saw his edits many times. He edited a lot of different pages for years, and no one objected. However, for someone with his interests, such wide topic ban is equal to a side ban. Ban him from pages Lenin and Stalin if he is such a problem for you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I am not related to the edits in the mentioned pages, but this user has a history of similar edits in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vilnius or other Lithuania-related pages where he tends to push pro-Polish POV without backing it up with reliable sources. In addition, he was already topic-banned in the past for similar behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Sabbatino. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have put in a request asking for an administrator to bring this ANI to an end and implement the measures required as a result of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor doesn't care about the purpose of the footnotes

Recently, User:Rebelrick123 added in the "Championships and accomplishments" in some wrestlers biographies the accurate name of the title (specifically the WWE Championship) they held. For example, Triple H has held the championship 9 times, but his fifth and ninth reign were as Undisputed WWF Champion and WWE World Heavyweight Champion, as it is pointed out in the footnotes. From his POV, notes are not necessary if we inform what they were, and due to this he puts all the title names that wrestlers hold them in those times in parenthesis; so in this case he was Undisputed WWF/WWE World Heavyweight Champion for 9 times? Nickag989^talk 09:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this requires any admin intervention at this time since it isn't about editor behavior or sourcing, etc. This seems best handled by consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling from the looks of it. Regrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I renew my call that Wikipedia simply drop all coverage of professional wrestling, footy players, music genres, beauty pageants, and anything Ru Paul–related as just not worth the drama. EEng 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC) And no, I'm not actually serious about this. At least not entirely.

It's a nice thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, Boing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Will take my rest here, nice to meet ya, fellas. --QEDK (愛) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Professional Wrestling" championships are Kayfabe. If a detail is controversial, either the version provided by WWE is canonical, or it's probably a too-specifc detail of a fictional universe and not worth including. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

189.216.25.162

189.216.25.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding unsourced and questionable info to articles, including articles about living people, and has continued after repeated warnings. Trivialist (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the IP 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C5A8:2998:F0D7:6896 have been reported at WP:AIV, this IP 189.216.25.162 maybe was a long-term abuser, I'm not sure User:Sro23 knew about this sock or not. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the block log, this IP was possible sockpuppet of User:WinnieThePoohFan2004. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that IP editor's contribs looked familiar. Yeah, I blocked it before as a possible sock. The problem was that WinnieThePoohFan2004 didn't leave behind much of a trail. It made trying to connect the accounts difficult. I'll block the IP editor again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reblocked, I patrolled the IP and didn't check the block log at first while another IP editor have described an long-term disruptive editing on the diff at WP:AIV. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unable to contribute to Spacetime article

I don't feel like edits to the spacetime article have been even-handed. I've bent over backwards trying to have a discussion with disagreeing editors, but there has been a steadfast refusal to engage in discussion, and there has been a lot of name calling and what I perceive to be bullying and railroading. I spent a great deal of time thinking through my edits, and fear that it will all be simply reverted. I would like another set of eyes on this. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to do at this point; I feel like I've done all I can. The article has been reverted to an earlier state that I fundamentally disagree with. The only discussion was a single editor's opinions, and what discussion there has been has been to attempt to demonize me. A revert was entirely uncalled for, and all of my attempts at discussion have been ignored or dismissed. This seems to primarily be the work of one editor, however, as I had noted on the talk page, there seems to be discussion going on outside of the talk page. One editor seems to be successfully waging a campaign to deny discussion of improvement. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the proper place to resolve content disputes. We have a variety of dispute resolution procedures available for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

When I read WP:BULLY, it says to report here, so I did. I'm seeing at least 4 of the behaviors mentioned there, perhaps more. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A second look says 6 problem behaviors.

I agree with Cullen328, this looks like a content dispute and should be resolved at an appropriate venue. I would say WP:DRN. On a side note, I'm of opinion that the entire article is too long in either case, and in fact could be shrunk to a few paragraphs. Time dilation, Galilean transformations, spacetime intervals, etc - all these should be in an article on SR and GR, not spacetime. Banedon (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I'm not really interested in spending my time wikilawyering, but I'm tired of the abuse and reversionism directed at good faith edits. It has been a recurring theme, and yet people who are openly claiming to own articles are somehow allowed to get away with it? 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, after having reported this issue here, I'm starting to get a response on the talk page. I am however still concerned about the bullying and the conflict of interest of off-page railroading. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I give up. I no longer care. The rest of the gang has showed up and decided that "peer pressure" should be the yardstick, not article quality. Consensus has been claimed. The bullies have won. Let this be a lesson to all those that would edit boldly, and stand up for their edits. You will be circumvented. You are not wanted. Not invented here. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor has a "my way or the highway" attitude, and the other editors should be using the Draft space for much of their work. This is clearly a topic for dispute resolution. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Slai2972 (talk · contribs) has just posted this at the article Norton House Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where they have been edit warring. It may not be a full NLT violation but it does need checking. MarnetteD|Talk 14:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor notified here. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mop applied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• There may be reason they're a bit worried. It is being claimed in the article that Norton House is a new name for Senate House, which had a document able scandal around child molestation. But there's no documentation about Senate House being renamed Norton House that I can see (granted, language barrier and this is a quick search hitting a lot of false positives due to the commonality of "senate house" wording in world news). That's not sourced one iota that I can tell and thus, if it is not true, I can understand why Slai2972 has posted as they have. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed that info temporarily as after some searching I could not find evidence they are explicitly linked. However a mandarin/cantonese speaker will want to take a look too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Being a Cantonese speaker, I've read through the article that was used as a source. The source says nothing about Norton House being involved, nor about it being renamed. It merely reports that an employee of Senate House has been arrested on these charges. However, some digging around does find that Norton House and Senate House have the same physical address and phone contact details. Also, a link to the Senate house website redirects to the Norton House website, which is indicative of a name change. Despite this, I would say that unless a source explicitly says that Senate House went through a business name change to Norton House as a result of this case, there is no way this source should be used in an article on Norton House. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra comment A revdel may be appropriate in this case. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Difficult rangeblock challenge for the Teenage Fairtytale Dropouts vandal

We could use another pair of rangeblocks on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal, one for the 2001:8003:208F:F00... group and another for the 49.195... group. Here are the past four ANI reports about this LTA case:

• September 2016 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. No action taken.
• October 2016 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Rangeblocks needed for LTA. Various solutions discussed including rangeblocks and Special:AbuseFilter/802 from Samtar.
• January 2017 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. Includes range calculations from Cameron11598.
• February 2017 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal redux. Asking about a possible higher-up action from WMF.

The frequently stated problem is that taking this LTA out of action would also remove a large range of good faith IP users. If someone can figure out a way to stop this guy without high collateral damage then that would be fantastic. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a fairly tight abuse filter and apply it only to a specific IP range or group of ranges? Sorry if that's a "duhh, no". I don't know much about the abuse filter, and I only have the right because I've occasionally needed to view private filters; I don't remember ever editing one. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, but I agree it would be very useful to apply a filter to one or more ranges of IPs. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

49.195.0.0/16 blocked anon-only for two weeks...that took a very long time to evaluate. The collateral damage isn't all that much when one actually starts assessing them. Let's see if that helps throttle him. Also, blocked 2001:8003:208F:F00::/64 for two weeks...he seems to have persistence for about a week on the IPv6 addresses. Let's see if that helps here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lord NnNn

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

---

Lord NnNn (talk · contribs) Continued disruptive editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please define "disruptive editing". All I'm doing is simply adding information to pages and you are senselessly removing it without giving me any justification for your actions. Lord NnNn (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content, but when you make an addition and it is reverted, the next step should be to discuss it on the article talk page and seek a consensus. You should not edit war to reinstate your addition and demand that others provide justification for its removal - which is what I see you have been doing on at least a couple of articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord NnNn: It's all explained in the warnings on your talk page, the ones you deleted. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord NnNn: Once again, I gave my reason the first time I reverted your addition. Also, please make all cmt on this issue here, kinda hard to follow you around. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Your reasons made absolutely no sense. I literally quoted what was given in the reference article, I even used the same words, please go through the article again. Lord NnNn (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Then start a discussion on the article talk page and seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism on WP:AIV

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

---

Resolved

 – IP vandal sock blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP user 73.106.75.108 is adding the names of several veteran editors, including several admins, as "vandalism-only" accounts. No idea as to their motivation - could be pure vandalism, or personal vendettas. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: A sock of someone. Blocked and AIV cleaned up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this one. Filter 855. Also a good lesson in geolocation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Sprotect Pastirma?

Pastirma is a dish from the Near East. I've never tried it. I'm not sure I want to. I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it. I have no interest in whether it's of Turkish, Armenian, Circassian, Persian or other origin. I don't know why the article is on my watchlist, and can only guess that I first encountered it via an earlier mention here on WP:ANI.

Until recently the article was long and (seemingly) well sourced. (I do not claim to have checked the sources.) Recently an IP seems keen to say that no, the origin is not nation/people X but instead nation/people Y. The IP's version is a lot shorter and has much more scanty sourcing. Try to AGP as I do, I suspect that this may be a matter of upholding national/ethnic pride. (I'll concede that the short text is well written; it isn't shrill. I am making no accusation of vandalism.) I'm inclined to revert (a second time) to the longer, better-sourced version and to s-protect this -- not because I prefer this interpretation, of course, but simply because it is much better sourced and thus more credible and objectively far superior -- but if this is the right thing to do, then it would be better if a second admin were to do it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do not get sucked into food wars. You will only regret it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From looking at the history, the version you reverted to was sourced (both weak and good sources) so it looks like the usual nationalistic food warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The text added by the IP appears to be a copy of https://www.facebook.com/turkishcookbook/posts/1044416968903832 (although that in turn may come from some older source). So it's inclusion here is a copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations on article posted to ITN

User:RioHondo has had ample warning (see Talk:Marawi_crisis#WP:COPYVIO), but persists in copy/paste edits on Marawi crisis (today's violations removed here). The page is currently featured on the main page in WP:ITN. I cannot undertake to baby-sit their edits indefinitely. Yesterday they edit-warred to restore blatant copyvios, claiming WP:NOTCENSORED etc (diff). As I mentioned on article talk, the user is unable to comprehend the issue. zzz (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a tag for close paraphrasing to get contributors to work on the wordings without having to remove entire edits. You simply delete at will any good faith addition without an initiative to discuss the problem first or an effort to improve it instead and paraphrase them yourself as other contributors are doing. Proper tags instead of wholesale removal does more to improve the article without having to lose any important detail added.--RioHondo (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So, you are going to continue copy/pasting material, because you think someone else may deal with it at some point. Thanks for clarifying. That is exactly why admin action is required. zzz (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As per article talk page, there have been close-paraphrasing of sources, not entirely copy/pasting. No biggie. Tag and it shall be fixed by me or any editor--RioHondo (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop commenting here now, except to point out that "close paraphrasing" generally refers to words or phrases. You are copying entire sentences (example diff, above). zzz (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the above copyright violation and substituted some purpose-written prose. I will check the rest of the article later (I have to get ready for work now). RioHondo, the policy is that copyright violations can and should be removed immediately. Please don't add copyright material with the expectation that others will clean it up for you. All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@RioHondo: You've now been alerted that close paraphrasing is not acceptable. Just to be clear, the next occurrence will result in a block (indefinite if coming from me). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN & Diannaa Will keep that in mind, and thanks for your help in paraphrasing the entry. Will devote more time to digest the content of sources to improve my updates and reporting of the current event article. Please note however that the nominator's mass deletion of other entries outside the source in question was my main reason for the earlier revert. I intentionally removed the entry he cited as problematic but he reverted again, even bringing back the problematic entry i removed. But anyway, I appreciate the help in the article as I believe we're all here to improve Wikipedia. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A nationalist user pushing nationalistic POV and removing article

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

---

User:Iryna Harpy repeatedly removes the article List of Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity, simply removing the whole thing: [132]

This is obviously done to push her nationalistic POV, as she's been doing on many articles.

She also attempted to remove my thread on the talk page: [133] - obviously trying to hide the fact it had been brought up.

Such pages exist for most significant minority groups, e.g. Lists of Irish Americans, Russian Jews, Italians in Britain, Arabs in Spain, etc. It's not racism, it's giving recognition to the presence of ethnic minorities in societies and the role they play.

And most important, Wikipedia support and encourage such pages.

Is it normal for someone with a nationalistic POV to try and make a whole ethnic minority disappear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.76.213 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Given multiple similarities, I've blocked the OP as a sock of this person. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've indef semi'ed. Being a redirect, not really taking away any editing privilege for IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The user removed the Russian name of the river from the page. — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Like below, take it to the talk page. Admin do NOT dictate content. Editors on the talk page do. We don't get involved unless there is a clear consensus there and someone is ignoring it or edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ιγκόρ: Again, as per the section below, please assume good faith rather than jumping on the WP:Aspersions bandwagon (please read the policy), what someone else says about an editor does not make it true, and it is inadvisable for you to try to turn content issues into a witch hunt. You are a new user and, obviously, are unaware of editing protocols followed at Wikipedia. When making WP:BOLD changes, you are also advised to do so with caution, and to follow WP:BRD. Each issue should be brought up per article on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Flags of separatists of the Donets Basin

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

---

User:Iryna Harpy twice removed flags from the page ( [134], [135]) despite there are evidence of using these flags: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140] — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't an admin problem, it is a content issue. Bring up the issue on the talk page, not here. Admin don't decide content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other issues. I wrote her and tried to explain it, but it seems she is not going to listen me. — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:MOSFLAG issue, although it might help if Iryna Harpy was to answer question posed on her talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The place to raise it, again, is on the article talk page. Not here, not on any user's page. The article's talk page allows for other editors to join in and a consensus to be found. Even if it is a MOSFLAG issue (and I don't doubt it), that is the place you take it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mjroots and Dennis Brown. It's rather difficult to keep on top of undiscussed reverts when it's night where I live (Australia), and Ιγκόρ would appear to be living in another time zone (i.e., I'm asleep). Yes, this is a content issue, and Ιγκόρ is adding flagcruft, plus making assorted other unsourced content changes without any form of discussion to articles already suffering from a lack of sourced material, as well as articles that haven't been developed any further due to being POV-splits. Furthermore, the user is changing content to 'update' existing regions not recognised as being separatist states by any definition other than his/her own POV. I've just risen (very early in the morning) to be greeted by a barrage of reverts, as well as an ANI thread opened(??!!). I'm going to continue to assume good faith on behalf of Ιγκόρ, but this new user needs to comprehend that we are not workshopping on a face-to-face basis, and that other editors don't respond within a matter of an hour or two because they are ignoring the user who has bombarded them, but that there are legitimate reasons for time lags. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain me what do mean by that statement: "Furthermore, the user is changing content to 'update' existing regions not recognised as being separatist states by any definition other than his/her own POV."? By the way, you still didn't answer why you removed the Russian name and the pronunciation of the river? Did you know that there a city which named after the river. Its name is Lugansk/Luhansk (Russian and Ukrainian variants). Maybe you didn't know, but the Donets Basin is a multilingual region.

“ Luhansk, Russian Lugansk, formerly (1935–58, 1970–89) Voroshilovgrad, Ukrainian Voroshylovhrad, city, eastern Ukraine. It lies along the Luhan (Lugan) River at the latter’s confluence with the Vilkhivka (Olkhovaya) River. ” — https://www.britannica.com/place/Luhansk-Ukraine

As one can see, Britannica uses both variants of spelling the river's name.

One more thing: here is my edit on your page (06:09 UTC), here is when you reverted my edits for the second time (10:30 UTC). More than 4 hours between. I guess, the problem is not that you're in Australia, ain't it? — Ιγκόρ (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Really. So the fact that I'd logged in from 10.26 to 10.30 (a whole 4 minutes dealing with another user and reverting flag cruft) means that I'm lying. If you're going to write long missives on editor talk pages about several different issues simultaneously, and they have only a few minutes to deal with the most prominent issues (which they really shouldn't have started on because they're busy IRL), don't be surprised if you don't get an immediate response. Feel free to view my editing history for the day: it's there in black and white. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic developments of genocide articles

We've been experiencing a lot of 'development' of articles on genocide topics over the past year in particular. The latest spate of unexplained changes are coming from a new user, Thisiswhyeventsunnerveme (talk · contribs). I don't have the time to thoroughly investigate these changes to content and, most particularly, WP:TITLE, but have noticed that accounts have been cropping up once a previous account has stopped making changes, all following the same behavioural pattern of making very confident moves, and all not communicating with any other editors in any shape or form. Whether we're talking sockpuppetry or meat is of little consequence, but the issue is that of trying to keep up with these articles and moves. There are no reliable sources for the titles alone, so we've broken out in a plague of WP:OR genocide articles. It seems that 'genocide' has become flavour of the month... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, but in my haste to log out for the day, I forgot to notify the relevant user of this thread. I've now done so here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed. Is there any way we can compare to Accopulocrat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) using CU logs? I am seeing some real similarities, including page overlaps, moves, subject interests, etc. GAB^gab 01:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Only the actual content changes. There are certainly similarities in the subject matter, but this editor is avoiding anything else (edit summaries; any communications) that may indicate who they are. I smell WP:EVADE, but there's more than one banned editor dealing with this subject matter out there. The annoying thing about checkuser is having to establish who you're dealing with before action is taken. In the meantime, the editor has made a mess of redirects and will leave the grunt work for others to clean up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked based on behavioral evidence that this is Accopulocrat.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, BH's conclusion appears to be correct. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues and implied legal threats at Talk:Brittany Pettibone

As part of an off-topic and very strange defense of "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" at Talk:Brittany Pettibone, Richardbrucebaxter has insinuated that legal action should be taken against Wikipedia.[141] This legal threat is vague and phrased indirectly, but so is almost everything else this editor has written. For background, the article is legitimately messy, and this hinges on the tedious debate on the difference between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist". I have not had good results attempting to communicate with this editor previously, so I'm taking this here. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that your interpretation of the articulation of a distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism as a defence of "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" verifies why editorial care must be maintained in order to avoid legal disputes with respect to BLP. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if that statement can be fully construed as a legal threat, but the entire post leaves me with a certain sense of unease.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2017/05/the-growing-nazi-axis/
• http://cubmagazine.co.uk/2017/02/kcl-professor-who-apologised-for-supporting-muslim-ban-appears-on-white-supremacist-talk-show-to-slam-mass-migration-from-the-middle-east-and-africa/
• http://www.newsweek.com/pizzagate-resurfaces-anti-semitic-slander-528950
• http://www.nationalmemo.com/pizzagate-old-anti-semitic-slander-resurfaces/

Her show and statements have been described as National Socialist or white supremacist by multiple top-quality sources. (Including the civil rights organizationSearchlight in a dossier) If they have any legal issues, they should contact Searchlight and the respective organizations, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just stating what multiple high-quality sources have already said. Perhaps someone could contact Brittany Pettibone, and ask her to make a video or statement on white supremacy/white nationalism? PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

comment - I agree with Kudpung regarding the legal threat. WP:LBL is policy and so is Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation. I also don't see where Richardbrucebaxter has caused disruption; disagreement perhaps, but not disruption. Perhaps the op can provide more diffs? I certainly hope WP hasn't reached the point that disagreeing with an editor's POV on a BLP TP warrants ANI. This appears to be a case of misinterpretation of a new editor's input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

By itself this one indirect legal insinuation would mean little. This editor's contributions to the talk page use pseudo-legal language which make minor points fill up a large amount of space. Talk:Brittany Pettibone#Edit Dispute (780588858: "Increase neutrality of lead") (one of several sections like it) was an 8,000+ byte post made mainly to suggest changing "...far-right activist" to "...activist for what is presently considered to constitute far-right politics; freedom of speech and traditional values". The reason, if I am reading them correctly, is because far-right is "a political category defined at an arbitrary time in history by one or more parties." This is mistaken in so many ways it's hard to parse, and using that much space to make such a strange point seems like an attempt at obstructionism.

The paragraph about "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" presented as plain fact the idea that racism is all that's keeping the races from amalgamating within 3-4 generations. It was, again, phrased so obliquely that it could be defended as a theoretical example, but it's still a racist, pseudo-scientific rant which doesn't in any way improve the article. All of these minor issues combined seem like a problem worth bringing to wider attention. If more eyes is the only outcome, I'm fine with that. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Chloe Khan revdel request

Resolved

 – The offending material has been removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Chloe Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get a revdel of these two edits [142] [143] and some kind of block to prevent the material from re-appearing? I believe this material violates BLP as it states that the subject of the article works in a particular industry, and we have no RS to support this. I believe it is contentious because it is a somewhat controversial industry. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I raised concerns about the article. I mentioned things that are part of the article and the overall information about Khan. I also raised the concern that we can not be sure that it was Khan that contacted Wikipedia until we get it confirmed through her social media or agent. Just like I had to contact Jasmine Kara a few weeks back to confirm that she was the one who had edited her own article. Kendall-K1 wants to do censorship and blank parts of my comments, and I reverted it back to my original comment. May I also remind Kendall K1 that Khan has admitted to having a career as a webcam girl, and a career as a Playboy covergirl, lets not get lost with the fact that she is or has been part of the porn industry. That it should be a controversial industry seems POV and there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia covering the subject and the stars of the industry. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I recall several recent legal threats from/about this person? An attention seeker not enjoying the attention now, or maybe trying to stir up more attention? Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google image search easily confirms Khan was a cam girl for some period of time under the name Chloe Mafia. I don't think any of those sites would constitute an RS though... Capeo (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you both. An attention seeker who now does not want her past to come back and bite her. BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Content Dispute re Piggate

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

---

Resolved

 – Content issues do not belong at WP:ANI as admin don't decide content. WP:BLPN is likely what you are looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a dispute about the inclusion of the following content in the article Piggate:

"In November 2015, solicitor Myles Jackman, an expert on sexual liberties and obscenity law, said that performing a sexual act with a dead animal would not be illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (He did not address the laws at the time the event was said to have occurred.) He noted that possessing a photograph of such an act would be illegal under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 if it was produced for pornographic purposes, but not if the purpose was "satire, political commentary or simple grossness".

My argument against it can be seen at the article's talk page:

"I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)"

However, the only response to this was by Andy Dingley

"I don't much care what you think - even your username makes this much obvious, let alone your repeated blanking of large sections here. But the consensus of other editors has been that it's a section worth keeping. The legal notion that the combination of two illegal acts becomes not illegal, rather than doubly illegal, is a somewhat surprising one. A surprise that RS, including broadsheet newspapers, have seen fit to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)"

There does not seem to be a consensus for this content's inclusion in the article nor a legitimate reason for its inclusion. Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute - even the headline says so - and there's nothing admins can do about that. Please go discuss it on the article talk page, and if you can't get consensus, please follow the dispute resolution steps outlined at WP:DR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I was aiming for WP:DRR/3 and WP:RFC. Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you opening an RFC on the wording. However, if you believe the wording you want to remove is a BLP issue, I'd suggest that WP:BLP/N would be a far better venue to seek advice from. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for one of those then, if you wish, but ANI is not the place for either as it is not an admin issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

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

---

User: Mazta2012 has removed the airport's logo from the article, claiming that it is not official. This is not true because the logo was directly uploaded from the airport's official website, therefore it is official. I have asked the user to explain himself but it seems he refused to answer. Can the admin help me in this issue? Thanks. CWJakarta (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. There's no doubt that image appears on the website, but it's not clear to me that this makes it anything other than the logo for the website. I see you've started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest discussing it there. This really doesn't need an admin at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tenebrae

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

---

I would like to have this user blocked from my account.

I first interacted with this user when editing the 'Ginnifer Goodwin' page when adding her latest project. The user aggressively claimed that it was simply to promote my 'client' and her 'project' and accused me of taking advantage of Wikipedia's editing access to promote a person that I had no personal or professional ties with, especially considering that I am under 18. (Please keep in mind, I am new to wikipedia and the original explanation was not clear by any means to me) I even tried to rephrase the edit to make it 'less promotional'. But this user and another both came against me and even when one relaxed, they reversed their opinion and insisted that I was wrong because this user had said so. A few days later, I noticed that this user had edited every single page I had contributed to and insisted they were incorrect & later accused me of using gossip sources, when the only possibly uncredible source was matching that of another editors on the page of a corresponding person. They literally went through my whole contribution list and kept track of all my online movements. As a minor and a new user, I felt uncomfortable, defenseless, confused, and uneasy. The day after I noticed this, told this person on their talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tenebrae#hello.2C) to leave me alone and that they were making me uncomfortable because of their imposing, impolite, and unwelcoming nature and their tracking/stalking of every single contribution and page I had accessed on wikipedia. It seemed like the person was trying to start a conflict or drive me off of the website. I felt like any sort of edit I made would always be watched, tracked, and blamed on by this user and this user would continue to pay special attention to me and target me. As I am a minor, I don't really have the means to defend myself against a fully grown, experienced editor that demands seniority from others. They say I am threatening them, I am merely making them aware of my discomfort and since I know this user is a volatile & frequent contributor, I am not asking them to be removed or anything like that. I am simply asking that this person no longer has access to any of my account information for my own comfort and solace. Thank you. If you have any questions let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• You didn't notify the user, which is required. I did for you this time. I will let another admin deal with this, I just shuffled the paperwork..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is my "volatile" talk-page response to this user's initial post on my talk page today [144]:

There is no way of knowing who anyone is on Wikipedia, and your threatening insinuation that you purportedly are a minor and that I am "stalking" a minor appears to be on the verge of a legal threat, a policy under which you can be sanctioned. My edits were strictly to correct gross violations of WP:BLP, WP:TABLOID, WP:GOSSIP and other inappropriate edits that were not "within reason and accuracy". As for your WP:PROMOTIONAL edits, more than one editor reverted them. Wikipedia welcomes all contributors and asks that they adhere to the policies and guidelines encapsulated at the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia.

Both I and User:Ebyabe here reverted this editor's fannish, promotional edit (as 172.250.87.105) at Ginnifer Goodwin. Moreover, Rosemaries19 added anonymously sourced dating gossip here, and fan-magaziney bridal-party details attributed to the non-WP:RS Daily Mail here, both of which I reverted. Yet a third editor reverted her here. I don't think the issue is me when at least three editors are reverting this person's non-constructive editing.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

hi there. the response is taken out of context. i posted on your wall my request for privacy & did not mention or request any specific edits. as for the ones you brought up, i sourced the same gossip that was on matt smith's before she removed it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Smith_(actor)&oldid=782343735) which I did not add. I merely saw the section and reflected it on the corresponding actress's page using the same source they listed. As for the Pippa Middleton edit, that was on her page before I touched it as of here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=782601042) i merely rearranged the already there information and replaced the world 'fiancee' with 'husband' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=783061259). i have not contributed anything that hasn't already been there for those sources. The last edit I made was here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginnifer_Goodwin&oldid=782961000) which is not in any way promotional and simply listed an upcoming stage project. it was completely factual. as for victoria, i merely added in a source. all of these edits were based off of/added because of content that was already there. edits that, if incorrect, this user did not notice until i contributed to their pages, which is no fault of mine. did not change any of the content. however, these edits were not of my concern. my only concern is that this user has been tracking my movements and as a user who is a minor and a human being it makes me uncomfortable and i do not wish for my profile to be visible to this user any longer. Thank you. (Also: you are the only one of these editors to specifically sift through and keep track of my movements)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rosemaries19: Things don't work at Wikipedia the way do at social media websites. You don't have a "wall" and you don't have a "profile". Nor is your claim that you're a minor relevant to anything here. If you're uncomfortable being a minor and editing Wikipedia, first, you shouldn't have said you were a minor; no one would have known otherwise. Second, it's your choice to edit Wikipedia. If you're concerned about it, it's easy: don't edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't get special considerations because you are a minor. If anything, it's likely to get you more scrutiny because of a perceived lack of maturity. If Wikipedia is making you uncomfortable, don't edit. --Tarage (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Also you have a very mistaken belief that you have rights here. You do not. This is a private website. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Some thoughts. 1. Rosemaries19 has made a total of 19 edits as of the moment of me writing this. Side-note; Cool coincidence. 8 of those edits are about Tenebra; 4 on Tenebrae's talk page and 4 at AN/I. To say that Tenebrae is sift[ing] restlestlessy and intentionally through almost every edit that Rosemaries19 has made is really like saying that Tenebrae did a five minute scan of the editors contributions to see what they were up to and whether or not action, guidance or nothing would be necessary. Stalking of a minor is a ridiculous overstatement of the facts. Rosemary, you have not made hundreds of edits that would take days to comb through. 2. It is impossible, completely impossible, to ban anybody from tracking your edits. I don't need to be logged in to see every single edit you make. Stalking falls under harrassment and if somebody is found to be stalking another editor to harass them there will be consequences, but, a) what you're requesting is infeasible and b) unreasonable because, per point 1, this is not stalking. 3. Wikipedia dropped the "that anyone can edit" slogan years ago. Every editor, from IP to bureaucrat has editing privileges not editing rights. These priviliges can be revoked at the drop of a dime. So not everyone can edit and anybody that does is doing so with the risk that they will lose it. 4. You do not have a right to privacy with regards to your account. Anything you do with the account can and will be seen by hundreds of people. If as a minor you are not comfortable with this, then this site isn't suitable for you. 5. Please sign your comments by either clicking on the link next to "Sign your posts on talk pages:" or by manually typing in four tildes (~) before clicking "Save changes". Click on "show preview" to double check that you have done so. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Mr rnddude, it does actually say on the front page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does Boing, but the behavior doesn't match the claims. Even if it did, we aren't school marms. This complaint is unfounded and dubious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm just pointing out that the claim that "Wikipedia dropped the "that anyone can edit" slogan years ago" is false. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude sums it up pretty well. You've made a handful of edits. No one would know you are a minor if you didn't make such a big deal of it. That makes me suspicious to start with, as me thinks you protest too much. You seem to have found ANI pretty quick for a newbie as well. Rather than be suspicious about Tenebrae's activity, I'm more suspicious of yours. As they say, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog. I'm certainly not going to take any action against Tenebrae. By coming here in front of thousands of editors who view this page regularly, you have guaranteed that many editors will be watching you now. We call that the Streisand effect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:JJBers

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

---

JJBers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JJBers Public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alternate account)

With this edit JJBers proposed the deletion of Gifford, Idaho. The motivation for this was because Gifford was used as a random example in this discussion. At that discussion, User:Ɱ became upset by the example in which Gifford was used, and wrote:

Nice example, linking an article I should AfD right now for barely any sources, barely any worthwhile content, and nothing really unique to the place at all. It's not even legally recognized, without even Census data, its own post office, fire company, or really anything else that makes a row of houses something distinct or independent... Let's AfD Gifford, this is ridiculous to have an article on what looks like only maybe five tiny farms in the dead middle of nowhere.

User:JJBers, who was part of that discussion, then proposed the article for deletion.

Gifford, Idaho, was created seven years ago by User:TheCatalyst31, and like thousands of other stub settlement articles on Wikipedia, it undoubtedly passes WP:GEOLAND.

User JJBers' edit was completely vexatious, and a blatant example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided a reasonable enough argument to compel JJBers, I see no fault here. If I AfD'd, would I be disrupting to make a point? I also disagree entirely that it passes GEOLAND, as it's not legal, so it therefore would be determined on a case-by-case basis based largely on "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", also per GEOLAND. Gifford doesn't have that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when did having a former school and post office become notable. Secondly, we have no information if this place even populated anymore, since there is no population data. From what I could see on Google Maps, it looks more like a small development on a minor road intersection than any actual notable place. Thirdly, how is that making a point? I went by the polices, and it was easily not needing of an article. —JJBers 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I won't venture an opinion about the vexatiousness of the AfD, but since Gifford had its own newspaper from 1903-07, and since Notability is not temporary, I cannot see a rational argument why the community would not be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It would seem appropriate to WP:AGF that JJBers did not know about the usual practice with regard to assuming notability for the many thousands of stub settlement articles. MPS1992 (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That newspaper is unnotable in it's own right, and doesn't also prove the notability of the town. And from what I gathered, it's most likely a ghost town. source. —JJBers 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The newspaper doesn't need to be notable; it just needs to have existed and been a WP:RS, and provide coverage of the place. There is nothing non-notable about formerly inhabited places for Wikipedia; perhaps JJBers is unaware of WP:NTEMP which is specifically referred to in the notability policy for places. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Four years of one little local paper is honestly trash. There's more being produced by most indie bands than that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense; any "indie band" with four years of non-stop, non-COI, independent reviews in print sources would be presumed notable. Perhaps not everyone remembers the era of print journalism as clearly as I do :) I do wonder if the above user is trolling.Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Expect the only source of information is a random catalog of old newspapers from the Library of Congress. That's it. —JJBers 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a long precedent of communities being notable as long as there's proof of their existence; see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on and so forth. (Not that I'd expect everyone to know that, as these articles still get taken to AfD from time to time, but they're also regularly kept with an overwhelming consensus.) The reason for this is partly that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer per the five pillars, and therefore should include geographic features regardless, and partly that settlements are usually well-documented in print local histories in a way that other subjects aren't, and are therefore almost guaranteed to have sources if you look hard enough and in the right places.

If you happened across this article by chance and AfD'd it, I'd assume good faith and a difference of opinion, but the circumstances here concern me a little. Gifford was used as an example in a somewhat contentious discussion that wasn't even about notability, and two people who disagreed with Magnolia677 suggested deleting it without looking into precedent or spending a whole lot of time (if any) looking for sources. That's rash judgment at best and POINTy at worst. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks/Racist edit summaries?

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

---

Would this be the right place to ask if this edit summary can be deleted? [145] - incidentally, while I am active on Vikipedia, I have never identified myself as Muslim, but regardless a demented edit summary like this should probably be deleted? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Kind of borderline, but I went ahead and revision deleted the edit summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:DrKay

Resolved

 – Complaint is without merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello I would like to know what I can do regarding this user. All the time a constant dispute arises for anything. I edit some article, provide source and still my edits are deleted or modified to the pleasure of the administrator. I don't think the subject of an article has the right to remove sourced material as if the article were your exclusive editing property. He asked me not to make any more "disruptive" editions contrary to his edition without justification, recently he improperly accused me of having another account called ThmPedro (talk · contribs) warning me about permanent block of edition (can check my IP) withuot any proof and asked me to discuss my issues in disccusion pages, which seems to be a waste of time since I have no answer neither in his discussion page nor in the discussion page of the edited articles. Personally, it seems to me a clear abuse of administrative power. You can check some disputed editions by reviewing history in Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878-1920), Pedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará, Prince Pedro Henrique of Orléans-Braganza, Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza, Prince Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza, Template:Brazilian princesses, and Template:Brazilian princes. In this last one he edited my message but did not even make a point of responding to discontinuity as you can see here: Talk:Brazilian princes. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• The sockpuppet tag diff [146] was a bit unusual. If he was a sock, why didn't DrKay just block Arthur Brum for a week or two as well? That is the normal way socks are dealt with. I don't see an WP:SPI case on either user and only one edit that could link them. Was that one edit all the evidence used to link the two accounts? Haven't looked at the rest yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I assume, but do not know, that the appearance of a brand new editor on a very obscure article looked extremely "ducky" to DrKay, and that is why he blocked the sock; as you suggest he may have been quick on the trigger, and there may be issues with his being WP:INVOLVED. We should wait to here what DrKay has to say. As for Arthur Brum: always go to the article talk page to discuss content disputes, that's where they get ironed out. Going to an editor's user talk page should be a later resort, not a first one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It was just one diff (it seems), an image. Granted, Arthur Blum has images in his deleted contribs, but declaration of socking on one edit that isn't identical to previous is not common. This is particularly true since the master wasn't blocked and there are a lot of other new users in that article. He may be entirely correct, I just want clarification, via WP:ADMINACCT as it was unusual. WP:INVOLVED is in play, but there could be a valid exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The ThmPedro account was created on commons to upload File:Luiz orleans bragança.jpg days after it had been deleted there (under the file name File:Dom Luiz.jpg). It is essentially the same as the files uploaded here by Arthur File:Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza.jpg, File:Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança.png. I think User:Arthurotto Brum may have uploaded a copy at commons too at some point. Arthur and Arthurotto (and now ThmPedro) are blocked on commons. Some of the evidence linking the accounts via various files was on commons, where it is now deleted. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I'm sure you can see that those of us without Commons admin access might be scratching our heads. Normally, the master is blocked a short while, although that isn't required, so that threw me. I'm satisfied now that I have adequate understanding. As I said below, the rest of the complaint is without merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)On the merits, I can totally understand his perspective regarding original research and sources, although that is beyond the scope of ANI. Template or article, if someone challenges you for sources, it doesn't matter what other articles or templates do, it is reasonable to challenge and the burden is on you to provide those reliable sources. If you keep making the same tired argument and fail to produce sources, after a while, that is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NLT

Some views on the content of this post on my talkpage would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 21:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a warning about the legal threat. The rest is a content dispute. I advise Continentaleurope to bring their concerns to the article talk page instead of reverting further. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Labour party opened a number of libels against those who made claims. They did not mention Wiki per se. So do not worry. I am trying to avoid similar faith. I should have been more clear in my words, as re-reading what I wrote sounds incorrect. Just to clarify, the LP opened libels against Blogger Caruana Galizia and the Nationalist Party....(happens every time for every political dispute) and I wish to avoid similar agenda...specifically when non-registered editors are using wiki to put their agenda. Kindly read some articles of Maltese media, available online to understand my concern.Continentaleurope (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, what you said violated our policy on legal threats. Not because you made a legal threat (you aren't in authority to do so on their behalf) but you are using the threat of a potential lawsuit to chill discussion and manipulate the actions of another. Let the Foundation worry about legal stuff. You need to back the hell up. All we need to worry about is editing and ensuring articles are sourced and accurate. If legal decides something needs to change, they will inform us. Your attempt is presumptuous and a violation of policy. Don't make that mistake again. And yes, the rest is a content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not a Legal Threat As per WP:No Legal Threats:A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. All he says is the "Labout party is considering opening a libel against wikipemedia foundation." This is not him saying personally that he will sue you (or WP) for libel (which is what a legal threat is). Talking about if something is a libel is not a violation of any of the rules and discussing if other people have said it is defamitory is part of that discussion. In fact as per WP:LIBEL: It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If he believes it is defamatory, it is his duty to raise that point and try to have it removed. This isn't about "chill discussion and manipulate the actions of another," it's about protecting WP from a potential loss of money from a libel suit (which is why we have these policies). It's not just up to the legal staff at the foundation, but up to all editors to follow WP policy in protecting it from libels suits. I ask that the warnings or threats against Continentaleurope for his actions (or any future similar actions) be withdrawn. -Obsidi (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• An obvious violation of NLT - The purpose was to create a chilling effect, therefore it's a violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• It qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Persistent addition of POV and/or unreliable sources to Ezra LevantThe Rebel Media

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

---

Can someone please review User:Erkanaz's conduct on Ezra LevantThe Rebel Media. He persistently tried to add an unreliable source (a WordPress blog) as support for a POV paragraph. When challenged he started using a Google Search which contains the blog in question as a source, and then when challenged on that he started using other sources, neither of which actually support the POV paragraph he is trying to add to the article. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The Wiki page in question, and my input was not, and is not on Ezra Levant, but onThe Rebel Media outlet.

2. Valid arguments made by User:Hungarian Phrasebook were taken into concideration, and inputs lacking proper sources, were consequently removed even before the said user wrote this message on the noticeboard.

3. User:Hungarian Phrasebook persistently keeps removing the very obvious, well-sourced, relevant and notable facts about The Rebel Media, thus raising suspiction that the said user's active cenzorship is not impartial.

User:Erkanaz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I referred to the wrong article in error. Have corrected my comment. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I actually agree that The Rebel is unusual among alt-right media for being pro-Israel. My issue is that this is a POV which, while it may be correct, is not sourced and the sources Erkanaz has offered do not actually support the claim he is trying to include in the article. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the edit history of The Rebel Media, it would appear WP:3RR has been breached by both users (I count five from Erkanaz, and six from HP.) Both editors should really have taken this to the article talk page and discussed the dispute, rather than edit-war severely. Definitely a soft block of sorts may be required, so that both sides can take time to reflect on the wrong-doings. Next time follow WP:BRD, and WP:DR. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think 3RR applies because it wasn't simple reversion/restoration. The edits in question shifted. Otherwise, I would have put in a 3RR complaint. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Hungarian Phrasebook:, unfortunately 3RR does apply here, which does states that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". You both engaged in reverting each other's edits, which is edit warring, and lead up to severe 3RR breach. From the clear evidence you didn't exactly do anything to avoid the edit war, and only made the issue worse upon yourself. You will have been well aware of your actions, and coming here with "clean hands" and not expect to catch a boomerang in the process wasn't the wisest of moves. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Having expectations on some sort of sanctions imposed on Erkanaz, should have been done upon 2RR, when you should have ceased a third revert and taken upon the correct procedure of dispute resolution. Has Erkanaz made a third revert, then going to WP:AN3 would have swung things more into your favour. However, as you did nothing to avoid a war, then the dirt are on both the hands of both users. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Any possible breaches done by me, were due to me being new to Wikipedia editing and unaware of the most rules. The comments made by Wes Wolf are noted. To comply with Wiki rules, I will refrain for two days from undoing the last reverts made by User:Hungarian Phrasebook. Although User:Hungarian Phrasebook himself agrees on the obvious fact that pro-Israel Alt-Right is a rare fenomena (something that all politically concious people know, and therefore something that hardly needs any sources at all), I will nevertheless include a proper amount of sources, too.Erkanaz (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Erkanaz: offering to refrain from making any more reverts for the next two days still doesn't make this current situation any better, nor is it doing you any favours. OK being new and unfamiliar of the Wikipedia rules is relevant, and Hungarian Phrasebook is fairly new too. Instead of reverting any more, why don't you both do the right thing and talk it out on the article talk page. Reach a mutual consensus, and work cooperatively together. If reverts continue prior to a consensus being reached then the likelihood of tougher sanctions will probably be higher than they are now. Should a dead-lock be met, then seek third opinion from uninvolved users. But bringing this here is really not doing either of you any justice. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Wesley Wolf: Point taken. Crossing my fingers in hope that the merciless soul of censorship in Hungarian Phrasebook will cool down within the next few days, and he will be able to come up with any valid contra-arguments in this topic, if such exist. Thanks for taking time to mediate.Erkanaz (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

OK then. And so To editors Erkanaz and Hungarian Phrasebook:, I have taken it upon myself to open up a discussion thread at Talk:The Rebel Media#Claims of Pro-Israeli stance, with some simple instructions which I hope you both can follow. And hopefully you will both resolve this matter swiftly and peacefully. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note - Due to the edit war and a request at WP:RFPP I have fully protected the page for two days. Thank you to @Wesley Wolf: for opening a discussion on the article's talk page. @Hungarian Phrasebook: and @Erkanaz: please use this time to discuss any further changes on the article's talk page and arrive at a consensus for how the article should read. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Yngwie Malmsteen

An editor is making changes to this article claiming that they are at the request of "the management". I know this could be a hoax but I feel an admin should look at it as I don't think the subject of an article has the right to remove sourced material, if that is what is happenng. Please advise. Britmax (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait. You haven't even warned them at all or let them know about this ANI thread. You should have either used Template:Uw-coi or left a note regarding conflict of interest. You need to notify the user of this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Sorry I totally missed that @Santasebastian: was not notified, I placed {{connected contributor}} on the article talk and welcomed them with a COI notice. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Notified  Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I left then a hand written note and directed them here. User's name is Santasebastian. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Dennis, you may want to reword "no one knows you are a dog" to "no one knows if you are a dog" with the link just so he doesn't get the wrong idea that you are calling him one. :) Full disclosure: I'm an Yngwie fan also (can I photo the signature guitar pick and upload to commons?)
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? I don't go running to teacher every five minutes, so I didn't know the drill and wanted to avoid this guy doing too much work that would then have to be undone. I will try harder next time. Thanks, everyone. Britmax (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Britmax: No worries, thanx for bringing this up :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent behavior by Atlantic306

Recently, I've received uncivil messages by Atlantic306 the newest case being here at my talk page after I made changes to articles they also edited, W. Roy McCutcheon and J. Bradley Creed because they were unconvincing for WP:PROF, but since I'm highly active in professors and education articles, there's no foreseeable basis that I was intentionally singling this user out at all. This also accompanies past similar messages by them relating to my own autopatrolled articles here, here, here, here, my subsequent response of disapproval here, immediate continuation as before followed by my subsequent request to stop, which returned with this. There's also an instance from July with quote I noticed this when pages I'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd", but there was no basis of I rapidly singled them out either, since I'm active in several article examinations. I've never sent this user messages or had any deep interaction with them at all actually, so I'm not confident any attempts at their talk page will resolve it and, because the community is entitled to know about such uncivil cases, I've opened a case. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • Well I was just going to sleep but in response I thought I was quite polite and was honouring what I thought was an unofficial interaction ban with ST. while he has been stalking my contributions and has made no effort to communicate with me at all, on one day he quickly AFD four articles id been working on that day and recently he has been prodding or redirecting articles Ive recently been working on. I don't mind people following my contributions but he seems to only want to antagonise me perhaps so I will react and end up here. Of the two professor articles they are the only two articles he redirected on those days which I believed he picked out as Id recently edited them.Regarding the autopatrolled status I didn't realise he was autopatrolled at that time (that was the day he AFD 4 articles Id recently been working on ) and I was just responding because I thought his articles needed to be reviewed and when he asked me to stop I did and I dont think Ive been uncivil to him just straightforward.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing uncivil or wrong with Atlantic306's edit at ST's Talk page, saying "Please don't stalk my edits", which is ST's leading complaint here. In fact, that is civil, it is telling ST that the editor is getting the perception that ST is stalking them, and then maybe ST should consider trying to avoid that perception. ST points out that they do so much generally negative stuff like opening AFDs that the editor could be mistaken in perceiving that ST is hounding them specifically, which is a fair point, although sad. Opening an ANI case--which can cause the target editor to get blocked or banned and certainly is imposing stress-- is not how to proceed. If you realize someone is perceiving you as harassing them, back the hell off! Otherwise, at least with respect to this matter you're wasting everyone's time here and costing more than your contributions are worth. --doncram 23:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC) [amended doncram 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)]

Also, ST's negative judgment that "I've never sent this user messages or had any deep interaction with them at all actually, so I'm not confident any attempts at their talk page will resolve it" indicates that ST has not attempted any normal discussion. Like an AFD nomination not meeting wp:BEFORE criteria, this ANI is highly premature. The other editor opened a user Talk page discussion, and ST has just ignored it, not deigning to reply at all there! Also ST is citing July 2016 interaction which is pretty old. Personally, I advise ST to withdraw their complaint here and for User:Atlantic306 not to sweat it, and not to reply further unless this really seems to go out of control (which ANI debates do tend to do). --doncram 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I opened this because of the ongoing concern in the claims of being accused of singling a user out, without substantiated evidence, there's no other solution there and thus ANI is used to resolve it. I would not have seen a positive outcome opening a user talk thread if the sole (and as the past messages, show) result was leading to the same claims. "Realize someone is perceiving you as harassing them, back the hell off" is not a policy-approved solution and will not fix anything, especially the accusations still exist. There is no positive outcome in having to limit articles I work with, especially if I am skilled at analyzing their notability (something I've explained for any signs of following, happening) in simply abandoning the subjects. Opening a thread with personal attacks is never a waste of time, if it's important the community know. Accusations following 2 mere articles is serious. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

47.150.249.19

Vandalism-only anon IP 47.150.249.19 has been making all-caps WP:BLP vios at biographical article pages, baselessly accusing subjects of being gay, having had abortions, or being Satanists. Admin User:General Ization has already admonished him at length at User talk:47.150.249.19, but the IP is persisting today. As BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages, these are seriously violative edits, and this IP clearly is not here to responsibly help construct an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

His first one here, I think, speaks for itself. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 17:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant troll, so I've given them a short block - if it continues, we can block for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove email access

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

---

Can someone remove email access from indef blocked User:Bing aguilar. They sent me this email

Hi.. recieved your email.. the amount in the receipt is for me? Thank you.. pls reply have a nice day

I never sent them any receipt (and since they sent it via the mediawiki email user function, they couldn't know if I did anyway). I did edit the receipt article and talk page, but this was long after they were blocked so I don't see any way for any confusion to arise there. In fact, their edit history and names makes me think this could be some sort of advance fee fraud attempt although I suspect more likely it's just lame trolling. Either way clearly they aren't using email for the intended purpose. P.S. While I'm normally very fussy about notification myself, in this case I don't see any point notifying them, so haven't do so. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Nintenchris5963 making threats

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

---

Just had this threat posted on my talk page by Nintenchris5963. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:POVPUSHing as they clearly stated that they are "sick of boys as main protagonists". —Farix (t | c) 18:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable threat, indef blocked. And I've reverted and rev-deleted the threat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:76.187.251.61

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

---

Hello I would like to know what I can do regarding this user. All the time a constant dispute arises for anything, recently I generate a war of editions in Señora Acero, currently continuing in List of Señora Acero cast members. Leaving messages on your discussion page is a waste of time, does not respond to messages, prefers to write everything in the edition summaries and fall into constant editing wars. Here you can delete messages from your discussion.--Philip J Fry^Talk 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Three months hardblocked. They have repeatedly blanked messages and blanked this ANI thread. Their saving throw was to suddenly scramble a response once they knew they were reported. I find that to be gaming the system.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

New to Wikipedia, Moderator harasses me for making a new article about a book

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

---

Subject Wikipedia:Harassment

Hi, my name is Asperous, I'm a software developer from Tigard, Oregon. I was reading an interesting thread on Hacker News regarding the decreased labor workforce of young men.

I searched Wikipedia a book someone mentioned on HN to learn more about it, and noticed there wasn't an article about it. I was able to find the book, and trying to be helpful, decided to submit an article about it on Wikipedia so other people like me could also find it. I didn't have much time but I did read through how articles should be submitted through Wikipedia (through the AfC processes) and blasted out a very short article with the book summary, book metadata, reviews (for significance), and table of contents. My hope was that other people would build off of this and add more information about the book (from what I understand Wikipedia is a collaborative platform).

My experience was very poor. First my article was denied because I put all my citations in the reviews section. That's not what I'm writing about, I've seen the AfC backlog and I appreciate that the moderator that denied me has high standards and that's fine. They at least left a note on how to improve and re-submit.

I'm writing about a moderator User:Chris_troutman. Although I'm glad the article was accepted, I'm afraid others who might receive the notes he left me would not continue to contribute to Wikipedia, hence why I'm writing this dispute discussion thread.

• On the history page for Men_Without_Work_(book) this moderator wrote: "I'll bet this clown got paid to write this article and they did a poor job of it, too."
  • I'd rather have constructive criticism about why the article is poorly written. Was it because it's a stub? Are stubs not allowed on Wikipedia?
  • Being called a clown isn't something I came to Wikipedia for. If I wanted to receive harassment for shilling and good intentions, I'd simply go back to the bitcoin subreddit.
• My talk page User_talk:Asperous#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Men_Without_Work_.28book.29_has_been_accepted
  • "I hope you were paid well for that tripe because it wasn't much of a contribution to an encyclopedia"
  • Honestly not sure what to think of this. I did my best to write a stub for Wikipedia. Now I'm being called a shill and my work attacked? I would have appreciated honest constructive feedback since I'm always seeking to be a better writer and am new to Wikipedia also.

I hope this information helps others who are new to submitting information to Wikipedia feel like this is a place where they feel welcome to do so.

Best Asperous (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I assume bad faith. Perhaps I was wrong in my accusations. I could blame Wikipedia for allowing "anyone to edit" and fostering this belief that we want stub articles from drive-by editors that will need cleaning-up and development, or I could blame the editor for slapdash work and a misguided sense of what editing is helpful. I accepted the draft so sour grapes after the fact must mean that they don't like being bitten. Silly me. I expect better from a newcomer that registered an account six years ago. If I'm asked to help out AfC's backlog sans occasional commentary, then perhaps an admin can let me know my help is no longer desired. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for the apology, it really does makes me feel a lot better about the whole thing. The spirit of your comments is probably right, that is that my article could have been improved or denied with an explanation that stubs are no longer welcome, but I just hope in the future such comments are put in more professional way that brings people into Wikipedia and not turns them away from it. Keep in mind that "71% of the editors contribute because they like the idea of volunteering to share knowledge." Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Let's not make Wikipedia a place where the only people who are willing to put up with the hardworking editorial team are paid shrills. Thanks, and all the best. Asperous (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Antisemitic remark left in vote

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

---

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

---

I came across an antisemitic remark by User:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist on a vote dealing with Holocaust denial. He wrote: While it's pretty clear that the Nazis performed the Holocaust, this was probably created out of (understandable) spite for the target.

This is unacceptable rhetoric (WP:CIV), and should not be left on the board. But it is protected as an archived discussion. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Be careful. Britmax (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Pashute, you have not given Zeke the required notice of this discussion. I could be wrong, but I'm reading that remark (in original context) as being anti-Nazi rather than antisemitic. I.e. "… created out of understandable spite for the (Nazis)". Murph9000 (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes Murph thats exactly how I read it. Its not anti-semitic by any reasonable interpretation. Pashute: When you make unfounded allegations of anti-semitism, you can fall foul of WP:NPA as well as weakening actual anti-semitic content by association. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I read it as the redirect was created out of "understandable spite" where the target of the understandable spite is the Nazi's.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Snow close, OP has misread the (poorly worded) comment. Nothing to see or do here. EEng 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Agree snow. It's also over two years old. There is no be a statute of limitations in force, of course. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

I know this discussion is closed, but since it's about me, I feel obligated to chime in (and am putting it underneath the part I'm not supposed to mess with). I'm glad most people understood my comment as intended, but perhaps I should have written "spite for the subject of the target article", as that is what I meant. EEng has a point in that I could have been more clear, but it certainly seems most people got it in context. In future, Pashute, please keep this in mind: In discussions at WP:RFD, "target" is shorthand for "the target page", in other words the page you get re-routed to when you enter a search term that is programmed to point to another article instead. That it took two years for this to make it to ANI, as well as the complete lack of anything even remotely anti-Semitic in my edit history, shows this is a very common way of interpreting this term at RFD. I can be pretty wordy, but never in a million years could I have imagined I'd be called out for it by being misinterpreted as an anti-Semite! That's gotta be a first for Wikipedia. By the way, I know "target" and "subject of target" aren't necessarily the same thing, but ain't it a shame that we even need an article on Holocaust denial? That might have been my original train of thought, which I know is a bit screwy. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User making hundreds of nonsense edits on own drafts to become "extended confirmed"

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

---

Riley Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Riley Cohen has made hundreds of nonsense edits on two own nonsense drafts today (drafts containing only a name, see page histories: #1, #2), obviously in order to become "extended confirmed" as fast as possible, with their sights set on some specific article (which since their previous edits include quite a few unconstructive edits on BLPs might be some sensitive stuff). So could someone please yank their "extended confirmed" rights ASAP? And possibly also give them a stern warning. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• XC revoked. Will confirm on their userpage. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Dunning–Kruger effect I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oy vey! Shut it down! Riley Cohen (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Might want to ban them per WP:DUCK: [147] 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've indef blocked after they admitted they have done before. This is both disruptive and likely socking. Feel free to modify if you think this is a mistake, or opine on it below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Checked. Couldn't find any past accounts, and  No sleepers immediately visible. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Still agree with the block, though, for what it's worth. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I know I'm a bit late to the party, but for those interested (@Black Kite, Dennis Brown, and Ks0stm:) we created {{ECgaming}} a little while ago for users who have their EC rights revoked due to gaming of the system. Doesn't really ever get used, but it's nice for tracking purposes. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

IP doing strange things

54.92.173.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is acting strange. May need to get blocked or something. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you could be right @EtienneDolet:, and there's more than one and in the same IP range doing the same style of edits across similar genres of articles. See 54.80.251.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) contribution history. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Any way we can check the others in the same range? Both of the above IPs now blocked and reverted. GiantSnowman 20:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor GiantSnowman: there was also a third 54.166.83.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again same range, same edit style, same genres. Zzuuzz blocked that one not so long ago. Looks like a some coordinated vandalism. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruption at Vladimir Lenin

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

---

I wish to request a topic ban for Gravuritas (talk · contribs) at Vladimir Lenin. A vague time tag was added to the article on 23 May. I addressed the tag today by adding the date 1916. Gravuritas removed it [148][149] despite the source being clear that the comment was made in autumn 1916. Gravuritas is therefore guilty of disruptive cite-tagging as defined by point 3 of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing, i.e. disruptively restoring a tag and removing content that resolves the tag even though the tag request has been answered. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(copied from Talk: Lenin)

"The bit you have deleted three times said: "when?|in practice, not writing|date=May 2017 . (Curly brackets deleted for clarity) That seems moderately clear, that I am not just asking for a date. If I picked the wrong short term to query this then please let me know what I should have put, and I'll put that in instead. To explain further: I am not questioning that Lenin said words to this effect in 1916- I am saying that his actions for the next few years were completely contrary to this statement. I can find the necessary RS if desired, but I am having great difficulty getting any of my wording accepted here, so I would prefer that another editor finds a form of words to explain the apparent dichotomy between Lenin's words and his subsequent actions. On the face of it, using this quote is ludicrous."

I suggest that if DrKay had read what he was deleting each time, he would have realized that I was not just asking for a more explicit time. His deletion was inappropriate- even if s/he didn't notice what precisely was being deleted the first time, my comments on the edits when I reverted should have alerted him/her. Even now, the claim is that the tag request has been answered- no, it hasn't.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We can all visit the article and see that balancing material and extra citations are given in the preceding sentences and follow-on paragraph, which explains his practice did not match his writings. This is not a content issue. It is an issue of behavior from an editor who is determined to disrupt the article, and has been asked to tone it down already at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#Personal attacks. DrKay (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So, DrKay, are you saying that until this last post you believed this was a simple date question, as you've maintained up to now? Or are you saying that you had already noted what I was really getting at, rejected it, and dressed up that rejection as a resolution of the date issue? If the former, then why not withdraw now the issue has been explained? If the latter, why did you not address it directly via talk?

This is not looking very nice, and given that you now want to assert that I am determined to disrupt the article, I question whether the edit of yours was originally in good faith.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that your explanation for removal of the date and restoration of the tag is hollow because you claim not to dispute the date and the article already explains his actions for the next few years were contrary to the 1916 statement in the next paragraph. That is why your actions can only be explained as editor disruption, since it is illogical to ask for a date, receive it, and then remove it and restore a tag asking for a date even though everyone agrees it is correct. Similarly, it is illogical to demand the addition of balancing material demonstrating his actions do not match his writings when such balancing material is already present. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're saying quite a lot, but you're not saying any answers to my questions above. You brought this to ANI. Now answer my perfectly reasonable questions.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, allow me to break this down to what really matters: DrKay makes a bold edit, Gravuritas reverts edit, repeat two more times. This is bordering on an edit war and violation of WP:3RR. Let me be clear that I have no opinion on the content, but reading WP:BRD makes it pretty clear that DrKay needs to go to the talk page and raise a discussion about his changes and get a consensus before adding it back since it is being challenged. This doesn't mean it is right or wrong, those aren't decisions we lowly admin make. One spat of over-reverting isn't enough to sanction....yet. If anyone keeps it up, it will be. So yes, this is a content dispute. Go back to the talk page and find consensus. Then if anyone edits against that consensus soon, we have grounds for sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. Gravuritas claims to agree with me on the content, i.e. admits that the date is 1916[150] and I agree with him that the quote needs to be balanced by content demonstrating Lenin's writings did not match practice [never having removed any such content, and indeed removing, as he would agree, the word "supporting"]. It cannot be about content if we both claim to be agreed on it. This is an issue about behavior only. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can't agree on the wording, then it is a content problem. What you agree on isn't at issue, as obviously you disagree on the prose itself, or we wouldn't be here. Until we see a clear consensus on the talk page, there is nothing to judge the behavior against. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree on the prose. I have no opinion on it. DrKay (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Jennysusan90

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

---

Jennysusan90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but rather to promote a website. See edits such as this, this and this. User talk:Jennysusan90 now has a long list of warnings about promotional and copyvio article creations. This is just wasting other editors' time. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Editor blocked, domain reported to meta for blacklisting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Ukrainetz1

Resolved

 – Jauerback beat me to it, but the user has been indef'd for disruption, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:CIR issues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to propose a indef block on Ukrainetz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per WP:NOTHERE. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Might need a little more than that, Mlpearc. Of all the things to ask for just like that! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It is meant to be abrupt, my feeling is we've wasted enough time on this user. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This strikes me as inaccurate; his problem instead seems to be an imbalance between his Englsh skills and his self-assesment of them. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Their lack of proficiency in English is causing significant issues when communicating with other editors. In light of this, Ukrainetz1 needs to follow WP:AGF closely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Look at their sandbox entry, which I've sent to CSD. There's a real competence issue here, likely a child editor based upon behavior. I concur with an indef block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, seems to be an issue. I prefer they not edit till they understand what exactly is happening. --QEDK (愛) 18:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the sandbox. What I propose is giving them a final warning to stop playing around and focus on producing good content or else they'll be blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I have no pressing objection to another final warning, outside of "we've had enough" and I think that would go well with Fortuna. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

i thought the WP:ASPERGERS was closed, is the new version WP:NO ASPERGERS, i have that but the real issue behind it is a "weak willed personality" and and quasi-"Dissociative identity disorder am diagnosed with the first, weak willed personalities is nothing more than i like live qiet in the forest and you want to dance all night and that type of Dissociative identity disorder is real but cannot be diagnosed by World Health Organization's ICD-10 Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

i still do not fully understund what happened, i realised this was not the other editors fault, i think i understood what NeilN meant, so FINAL WARNINS? WE HAVE ENOUGHT? what does that mean and how does that help? people make accounts in 1 second, ip block? nope proxies does not work? VPN always does and will always do. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

indef blocked warning for making joke at my user talkpage sandbox? well i guess it not so bad people get banned for nothing not understanding a WP:DISRUPTPOINT some admin did, see the banned people list, i dont renember specifically where i could search but it would take such a long time and 8 pm here in sweden and i very tired, meybe we could solve it without any unfrindlness such as an "indef block warnings" and begin anew tommorow, see most of my edits theya are acutally very good contributions to the wikimedia foundation Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That may be as you see it right now, but here is what others might see:

• You have difficulty understanding colloquial English, and don't seem to realize it. That makes communication difficult.
• You have personal issues that you appear to see as a shield against certain criticism, rather than as a situation that has to be dealt with. Active disassociation makes it very difficult to work responsibly; some aspy traits can be harnessed, but others have to be worked around or fought. If you wanna do stuff here despite them, you have to bring the final product -what gets actually posted - into good order somehow.
• Pointing out that blocks are evadable was not a good idea here for three reasons:

• Admins -which are most of the people in the conversation, I obviously am not- have to spendwaste a lot of time dealing with evasive socks. It's a hot-button topic to them. Don't wave flags at bulls, unless you like being gored.
• Evading a block while keeping the current issues with your work would be impossible. Doesn't matter where you post from, the distinct style, and the distinctive deficiencies, would mark the posts for nuking on sight.
• Evading a block after fixing the current issues would pose no direct problem for Wiki, beyond block evasion per se.

Anmccaff (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Man, that didn't take long, did it? Jayzuss. Anmccaff (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New spin on "my little brother did it": "a Russian hacker did it". --bonadea contributions talk 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman your comment on my talkpage: Notice this olny the lately! olny lately! most of my 500 edits are good but the 50-60 are not, youre the most latley i have stop taking things seriosly, i do not need a break or any further warnings, what happened today is a wake up call for me, just please explain to me what i have done wrong in semi-simple english Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this editor has now threatened to sock, per what they posted a few lines up. Block them now. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ukrainetz1: Perhaps you'd be better off contributing to the Swedish-language Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• A warning seems insufficient. I'm as patient as the next guy if there is any hope of rehabilitation, however, I do not think this is the case after viewing the deleted contribs. This is disruptive, and my gut says that we need to just block for WP:DE and an inability to conform to community standards (CIR). It will happen eventually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indef block per WP:DE as further explained in WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. There have been plenty of warnings already.- MrX 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm less patient than Dennis Brown. User indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Good block: the ability to communicate is essential. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Necessary block, sadly. I think it might also be necessary to look through Ukrainetz' edits, to check for blatant misunderstandings/errors (as seen here and in this edit summary of an otherwise good edit) and POV (as seen here), as well as for useful content that needs copyediting. Whether it was due to some language barrier or something else, Ukrainetz did display a very belligerent attitude with plenty of all-caps shouting and mild personal attacks in edit summaries, and that makes it a little more challenging to view their additions objectively. Hence, it would be good if a few different editors could take a look. --bonadea contributions talk 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Chris Pine

Hi I'm not trying to cause a dispute i feel that the particular paragraph on chris pine's page should not be there at all. How would that person who keeps putting it there feel if someone put all of their mistakes for all to see on the Internet. I bet they would want them removed also, so would a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottleshock34 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User is apparently edit warring over cited content rather than discussing on talk page as has been requested by other users. I would suggest not removing the content again w/o a consensus from other users. Alterantively, there is the blp noticeboard.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As Dlohcierekim sort of said, this is a WP:Content dispute which shouldn't belong at ANI, no matter whether or not your trying to cause a dispute. Instead you should follow the normal processes for dispute resolution as outlined in the previous linked page. Notably, the last non bot edit to Talk:Chris Pine was in August 2016 [151]. Discussing on the article talk page is pretty much the most basic step of dispute resolution. In this case, since it's a BLP, as suggested above you could also ask for feedback at WP:BLP/N although you really should generally discuss on the article talk page first. Note that the only reason this will likely belong here at ANI would be if one or more editors need to be sanctioned, and the editing history suggests if that ever were to happen, it's more likely to be a WP:Boomerang i.e. you will be the one being sanctioned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:CitationKneaded

Complaint against CitationKneaded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Despite the user casting accusations of hounding and cyberstalking, I find this and then this more serious hounding. The user starts off with distasteful semantic posts, to which I politely advised about the use of YouTube and for the user to maintain a level of civility. The user appears to ignore the comment and posts a duplicated thread, as if to spam a talk page with their pointy view, of which I merged the two threads together.

Another editor intervened with basically the same advice as I had previously given. I then reminded again about their lack of civility, and noting that I was aware of a DS against them, in a bid that it would calm them down and back-off on their pointy disruption, and further went on that the article on the London attacks that happened last night cannot rely on first-hand eyewitness accounts - noting WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS.

CK went on to be somewhat rude towards another user, to which I strongly advised about their behaviour coming across as disruptive and again repeating what I said about the use of first-hand accounts of news. To which I get called "tone-policing", "seniority pissing-contest", and "stalking". I did not know that taking part in an active discussion was now an act of stalking. Admin's are very well aware that I have been a victim of long-term abuse from various IP's acting in WP:SCRUTINY which can be viewed here, and I feel that this user may be connected to that WP:LTA that I have endured. But these ridiculous accusations, gaming the system, and hounding multiple editors about my persona, is unacceptable behaviour. I am happy to cooperate any further into this matter, should admin's require me to do so. Sincere regards, Wes Wolf ^Talk 05:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Of some relevance is this request on my talk page by CitationKneaded for sanctions against Wesley Wolf and my reply. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

After cyberstalking me ("have you forgotten about your ArbCom sanction? At least I have some level of intelligence to do a background check on your behaviour." - his exact words) & bragging about it for no apparent reason than to puff up his own ego in his condescending remarks, user was asked in no uncertain terms to refrain from further contacting me, but continued his harassment both on the talk page of the article & on my own talk page. And as you can see, he's continuing his cry-bullying here. Contrary to his wild, baseless, & narcissistic accusations of "hounding", I merely want him to leave me alone & not speak to me, but he clearly seems to have trouble comprehending this simple request. Now after his earlier unwarranted display of antagonism, he's trying to drag my name through the mud here, saying I was "somewhat rude" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2017_London_attacks&diff=next&oldid=783714937 here, when there was clearly nothing rude about a remark that was merely discussing the broadness of context - WW's subjective feelings are not the basis for how articles are edited or how the Wiki is run. At every point, I simply asked him to please leave me alone, but he chose to ignore my request & continue harassing me with hypocritical lectures on "civility" while showing me none. Now he's acting like he has no idea what he's done despite repeatedly, clearly being asked to cease & desist after his initial inappropriate, linecrossing behavior. Moreso, he's crying victim & trying to cook up some conspiracy story for sympathy points to connect me to some "trolling campaign" when I have neither heard of him before (he's not as famous as he likes to think he is), nor do I ever wish to hear from him again. As if this narcissistic crybullying was not enough, now he's calling the mere fact that I reported him to an admin "hounding", when he himself said "And feel free to report" when I warned him that contacting me further would result in me reporting him to an admin. This behavior is simply beyond belief, especially from someone who's apparently such a long-time wiki editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:June_2017_London_attacks#All_the_Islamic_apologists_can_stop_with_the_obligatory_cries_of_.22oh.2C_but_we_don.27t_know_for_sure_if_it_was.22_apologia_already.2C_it.27s_getting_old.2C_you.27re_not_helping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CitationKneaded#Notification_of_a_report_made_against_you_at_WP:ANI If I were a more cynical man, I'd say that I'd expect the admin bias to obviously favor their longtime colleague instead of some guy they've never heard of, but I've presented the truth for you to see as best as I could, & I leave it to you to make your final judgement - hopefully you'll decide fairly, & quell the suspicions that Wikipedia is turning into a "gated community", like so many other online communities have. Thank you CitationKneaded (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The remarks above are further evident to the disruptive behaviour of CK. S/he made this threat, to which I did inform them of the ANI route if they wished to raise matters further, but also noted to them about WP:Boomerang, so they cannot exactly claim they did not know how to report a matter. I warned the user at 05:44 about 3RR after they had made a third revert on June 2017 London attacks. Their request for me to stop talking to them was made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2017_London_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=783716763 05:47} (3 minutes after the issued warning). So I fail to see how I have ignored their request, when I posted on their talk page prior to such request. CK has also been informed that they cannot stop anyone replying to comments on an article talk page. I have been very reluctant in taking this action of ANI, as I could clearly see this user was just going to hound and harass talk pages of many admins until someone informed them about ANI. So I merely saved them the chase-around. How is that hounding? And their attacking behaviour is clear in their contributions with attacks cast at other editors also at Talk:June 2017 London attacks and in their remarks above. I am happy to leave the user's talk page alone and disengage in further interactions. However, I will not be silenced from participating in any discussions on an article that I have interest in and have edited constructively. Wes Wolf ^Talk 06:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Another great example of why creating articles on breaking news just isn't worth the drama. I propose the article be deleted and then started again from scratch in 72 hours when the wheat sources have been separated from the chaff and tempers have cooled. EEng 07:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• The use of phrases like "narcissistic crybullying" to describe standard warnings for behavioral issues and "cyberstalking" to describe looking at previous talk page warnings is not indicative of a user here to build a collaborative encyclopedia in good faith. Nor is the ludicrous demand that another user not respond to their posts on article talk pages. Moreover, many of the user's talk page posts in question are entirely off-topic WP:SOAPBOXing and/or trolling, notably this pointlessly-provocative nonsense; they have done the same thing on other pages and declared anti-Trump protests to be terrorism. I would recommend an indefinite topic ban from any and all political or current events topics and if they have anything useful to contribute elsewhere, they can use those pages to demonstrate that they're able to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia before returning to such controversial topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Where do I start with my response? I'll start with the discussion title from CK. It was uncivil and frankly insulting. Wikipedia has protocols and to brand every Wikipeadi user as "Islamic apologists" is truly uncalled for. Then came the condescending discussion from CK. "If that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be." I mean seriously? Had the user asked politely, we wouldn't be in this mess. WP:OR clearly indicates that we cannot make assumptions on our own. We need reliable sources to verify what is being mentioned is true. CK instead went to attack Wesley Wolf out of nowhere. They were polite and calm in their response and then had to become defensive, which I would have done as well. They've accused Wesley Wolf with "tone-policing, the seniority pissing-contest, the condescension, and finally, the stalking". A) it's called WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. B) No one was flaunting their seniority. CK made it rudely clear that Wesley Wolf couldn't indent properly. C) There was no stalking of any kind. Also, you cannot warn a person to stop responding to your messages on any talk page except yours. There's no such thing as "For that last one, you can kindly not interact with me again on here or you will be reported, this is your first and final warning." A) It's called ignoring the person and B) it only applies to talk pages. There was no harrasment or stalking of anykind. All users are required to notify another of rule-breaking by posting warnings and ANI notifications and such. It's standard procedure. I second NorthBySouthBaranof. I don't think CK is entirely there to build an encyclopedia; however, I would support a topic ban and see if they truly are. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

I have a Twitter impersonator, as was called to my attention here, which is now buried in the archives of my Talk page.

Another editor, User:Let99, and I got into a content dispute over the past couple of days.

Let99 did some opposition research and just wrote:

• this on their user Talk page: It also appears that you advertise for and take payment to edit Wikipedia, so I think that it's more likely that you will be blocked. The Wikipedia rules are very clear about that.
• this on the article Talk page: My link has been reverted twice by jytdog without a good reason. If it's this same jytdog, it's someone who takes payment to edit Wikipedia, so the motivation for there is suspect.

This is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of WP:HA. I do not find this acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what is happening. There are statements on the Paleo Diet that have claims that don't have references. I added a reference. Like many of the existing references on that page, it doesn't specifically mention the Paleo Diet, but it does specifically address the claim made in the article. Jytdog is reverting my edits without discussion claiming that it doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have the words "Paleo Diet" in the source. (That is irrelevant, because it does perfectly address the claim in the article.) Because the Paleo Diet is a high controversy topic where some people are making a fortune, I did a quick search in Google to see if this user was affiliated with entities that make money from the Paleo Diet. The Twitter link offering paid Wikipedia editing was there, so I mentioned it. That is not harassment, just due diligence. The relevant talk section is here. Jytdog should have started a discussion there before starting the edit war. Jytdog is one of those Wikipedia users who uses heavy hands and Wikipedia gobbledygook to try to to force through edits and silence opposing opinions. That kind of behavior is why Wikipedia has a reputation for toxic editor culture. What should have happened, is that Jytdog should have started with a comment on the talk page instead of reverting my edits over and over. (They weren't the same edits. I changed it to make it even more relevant after the first revert.) By Jytdog's argument, any reference on Wikipedia that doesn't specifically mention the name of the Wikipedia article should be removed. It is not a convincing argument. Let99 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Because Jytdog is repeatedly reverting my edits without any discussion, I've added a "citation needed" tag to the unreferenced claim in the article and proposed three possible references on the talk page. We should be having a civilized discussion about how to edit a page, rather than this knee-jerk reverting and threats. No single editor owns the content on these pages, so, in general, it should be discussion first, with reversion only as a last resort. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Let99 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not "due diligence", it's a crystal-clear policy violation. (Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy. if you want chapter and verse from policy.) Stop it now. ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. How would you suggest dealing with toxic editors, who prefer conflict over cooperation, where there is a high suspicion of paid editing? Where should that be reported? Who would actually look into it? Paid editing is not a small problem on Wikipedia, and there are few tools other than a quick search of the username. Most discussions of editor behavior happens on third party sites. (Non-public information is obviously completely different.) Let99 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Let99: Please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That page says that people should disclose their payments, but obviously most don't. It's a big industry. Sources: [152][153][154]. A quick Google search will turn up links that offer that services. The paid users who have trusted accounts and who know how to do effective wikilawyering to silence the opposition with obscure rules and calls to the admins surely charge the highest prices. If admins are not willing to look into those situations, then how do you suggest regular editors should defend themselves? Let99 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This is not the location to discuss suggestions for changes to paid editing policy, particularly since it actually has nothing to do with this situation. The essay you previously claimed represented Wikipedia policy on that ("Wikipedia rules are very clear about that") is actually a failed policy proposal, as it says on the page, so it's not the rules. The action that Jytdog took in reverting edits he thought were improper is actually standard Wikipedia process. If you read up on the Bold/Revert/Discuss cycle, you'll see that a revert is the proper response to a problematic addition, and that it is then on you to start a discussion to overcome the objection. To arrange it otherwise, no reversion until after a discussion, would do more to keep bad edits in than to promote good edits. So, may I suggest that rather than continuing to contest Wikipedia standards in this inappropriate location that you apologize to Jytdog for your inaccurate and inappropriate treatment, strike through the accusation on the article talk page, and then move forward with a discussion of the edits focused on the edits, rather than on the editors? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not a problematic addition though. The given reason for reverting was that the source does not mention the words "Paleo Diet"--but neither do many of the sources on that page (or on the entire Wiki). I wonder if you all realize that this is exactly the toxic wikipedia editor culture that so many people talk about. There are more civilized, rational ways to deal with these disagreements. You think that the first response to the addition of a credible, relevant link that you disagree with should be reverting? That's what makes Wikipedia such a bad experience for many editors. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler - the paid editing policy actually is very relevant. I'm asking what a user should do when paid editing is suspected. Should I just do nothing and let articles be overrun by extremely aggressive, toxic editors? I did not know the answer, so all I did was a quick search of Google for the user's username. It turns out that, buried in Wikipedia's extensive, cryptic rules system is a caution that editors are "warned" against doing any research on other users. So, sorry for doing that, but I think that my question is very relevant: what is the proper alternative action that I should have taken? I did not post any secret, personally identifiable information. Let99 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I certainly assume enough good faith on your part to expect that you did not see it as a problematic addition. Jytdog clearly saw it otherwise, and did what an editor is supposed to do in that instance. You claim there are more civilized, rational ways to deal with disagreements; your method was to try to hunt down destructive facts on the editor you disagreed with, made public play of what you thought you had found, and repeatedly complain about his not having adhered to the rules you choose to invent for the situation. Faced with other people looking at the situation and not agreeing with your own evaluation of your actions, you have doubled down rather than listening. If your concern is a toxic editor culture, you may wish to stop looking for the mote in the eyes of others. My suggestions to you remain: apologize to Jytdog; whatever your intent was in suggesting he was a paid editor, it does not appear to be true, and in putting that forward, you are just giving more leverage to an existing attack against him. Read the directions at WP:STRIKE to see how to strike out your text; doing that will show that you are retracting that, while keeping the discussion integral. Stop attacking Jytdog, as you've done multiple times here. He has not asked for you to be "banned", despite your accusations of that. Read some of the relevant guidelines and essays you've been pointed to. WP:BRD has the material on the bold/revert/discuss cycle. WP:COI has material on what to do when you suspect that someone has a conflict of interest (look down to the "How to handle conflicts of interest" section, although you probably shouldn't zoom right there; the other parts on what Wikipedia considers to be conflicts of interest may prove useful in your editing.) Assuming good faith is needed even... no, especially... when dealing with someone with whom you have a disagreement, and will likely make your editing more comfortable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what actually happened. Let99 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't often express my emotion here at ANI but I find this behavior disgusting, with respect to a) the sloppy arrogance in presenting my impersonator's claim that I do paid editing as a "fact" b) the dragging of off-wiki garbage into WP; c) their ham-fisted effort to "win" the content dispute by presenting this at the article Talk page where the content dispute is happening (truly crass behavior that taints all efforts to effectively manage COI in WP); and d) their repeating here at ANI that they feel that this is perfectly appropriate behavior. I am seeking a block and a stiff one; what they have done, are doing, and intend to keep doing is unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone is impersonating you on Twitter, you can get it removed. (File a support ticket.) I did not present paid editing as a fact. You seem quite intent on getting me banned at all costs though, even though my behavior is several times more calm and rational. The policy says that "editor are warned..." I have taken my warning. It would be really bad community management to ban a user for some obscure rule that no casual user could possibly have seen, unless they spend all of their time on this site. I've been editing this site for years and have never seen that. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ummm, this is a half-assed attempt at WP:OUT outing. The fact that it's false information doesn't really change that someone decided to post personally identifiable info on Jytdog to WP in an attempt to win an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There was no non-public personally-identifiable information posted. You should address my points above: how should one respond when paid editing is suspected? Where exactly should that be discussed, because it's a serious problem with Wikipedia in general. I've even encountered "professional" wiki editors here who seem to work in groups in order to shut down any possible hint of dissent with their opinions. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If this has been addressed already elsewhere, I apologise. If off-wiki evidence leads you to suspect someone is beeaking Wikipedia's rules, begin by emailing an administrator and asking for advice. There's a long and ugly history of on-wiki discussions involving off-wiki behaviour turning into doxing so we're (probably over-) sensitive about that. (That is a fake Twitter account - Jytdog is just too smart to do that.)

The reason we don't usually cite sources that don't address the main topic is to avoid WP:SYNTH. In the example above, the unsourced statement is supporting a bigger claim about the main topic so we need to find a reliable source that also adduces the unsourced claim in support of the bigger claim - otherwise Wikipedia is constructing arguments de novo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks for the information. I'm aware of WP:SYNTH. Before judging me too harshly, you should see what Jytdog is up to. This is the sentence that I was providing a reference for: "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes." It needed a citation, so I linked to this article, which directly addresses and backs up that statement. Jytdog did not want to discuss it, but instead, acting as if he owns the article, just started reverting. I tried rewording it once, but it got reverted again without discussion. I then added a citation tag to the sentence and proposed three links on the Talk page: this, this, and this--all very relevant. So then Jytdog deletes the entire sentence from the wiki article. I've been entirely calm and rational the entire time, encouraging discussion on the talk page rather than continuing the edit war that Jytdog started. He is doing everything he can to try and crush anyone who disagrees with him. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Sorry for looking up the user's name in Google -- please give me an alternative solution as to what I should do when paid editing is suspected. How would I find a wiki admin to email? What is the admin going to do--Google the username? It's a chronic problem on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Jytdog is a paid editor, but only asking how else one should research that when it's suspected. There doesn't seem to be any way for regular editors like myself to defend against these kinds of attacks from editors who are more familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia's cryptic policy system. We have no way of defending ourselves against things like this, and the final result is that many articles (especially controversial ones) have terribly wrong information on them. Let99 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That last source (Smithsonian Magazine) certainly brings the probability of grain-eating into the paleo diet debate, and the primary source it discusses (Science) is reliable, but the Smithsonian piece is just a brief comment by a science journalist/editor/generalist, so not a strong source. Jytdog says in his edit summary that this claim, about the probability of paleolithic grain consumption, isn't made in the body of the article, and if that's so, then per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead.

As for what to do about suspected paid editing: if you don't yet know any admins, take your concerns (without identifying the suspect or evidence) to WP:AN - as opposed to here (WP:ANI) - and ask for an email chat with an admin about possible ways forward. It's a very, very vexed issue and this community is still wrestling with how to deal with it, but discretion is essential. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let99 your dehumanization of me violates everything we do here. You have treated me like I am filth, and why? In order to try to get a single ref into a single Wikipedia article. That is not acceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to continue this discussion. I've replied to some of the points on my Talk page and will leave it at that. Let99 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Let99: I reckon you should remove the claim you made about paid editing and the external link to the twitter account in Talk:Paleolithic diet as a show of good faith (and per WP:HA and WP:OUTING), now that you are aware it is an impersonator. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, I've removed the comment. Let99 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, Jytdog immediately reverted my edit so that the Twitter link was re-added. I've left more comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if there is anything else to discuss about it, but I did leave some advice for the Wikipedia community in general over on my talk page. Let99 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You deleted it in this diff. You cannot just delete things as other people have said to you; you need to redact. I restored it in this diff. And I did the strike-out for you in this diff. You refuse to follow community norms, and the resulting problems are everybody else's fault. Classic. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for fixing it. The tone in which you are writing right now is exactly what I'm referring to on my talk page. You're trying to silence people and "win" by pointing out how Wikipedia's complex policies are not being followed to the letter, rather than cultivating a culture of users-helping-users with a spirit of friendly collaboration. That is what started this entire thing. If you're in a bad mood, take a break and write what you have to say when you feel better. There are real people on the other side of the screen. :) Let99 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Let99: "The problem is you" and a complete lack of acknowledgement that what you did was clearly over the line do not convince me that a preventative block should not be imposed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: If you are an admin and you have the ability to do that, then I don't know how I can stop you -- I'm not in the Clique. (There seem to be a lot of non-admins here in this obscure discussion.) I think that it would be a mistake though, and would confirm what I wrote on my talk page about admins allowing certain long time editors to bludgeon other editors over the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. I've been calm and reasonable through this whole incident trying to encourage collaboration rather than conflict in the editing decisions, but Jytdog is trying to drag it out and get me banned in any way possible. If you can't see what is happening, I don't know what else to do about it. Edit: by the way, I already acknowledged that I now understand that searching Google for someone's public handle is off limits on this site, even if the motivation for someone's edits is suspect. That rule was buried in Wikpedia's policy pages, so I did not know about it. Let99 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that added comment where you acknowledge what you did was wrong. We had to pull that out of you kicking and screaming and even in this you don't seem to understand that this is part of the fundamental protections that editors have here, but whatever.

Let99 you continually mistake people disagreeing with you as "toxicity". What is toxic is your inability to talk through differences and relent when you are not able to win consensus for your view, and instead just attacking others. What you did to me and your complaints about me here are exactly parallel to your behavior at Talk:Eidetic memory. None of that is OK - all of that is harmful to the community.

But the acknowledgement is good enough for me. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see any point in prolonging this discussion. If people don't know what I mean about toxic editor culture, read posts like this, this, and this. Let99 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are so doggedly not listening. What you did was so toxic but you are lecturing everybody else, like we have all not just witnessed true slime. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling people "true slime" isn't a bannable offence on this site? :) I'm not sure which part of my message you're replying to. If you would act a little nicer towards other editors, we could have spent this time working together to make sure that the article is well-written and accurate, instead of this. Let99 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I called your behavior true slime. You keep twisting everything to make you a victim. Your behavior here was completely unacceptable (in other words, "toxic") and every other editor who had commented here has made that clear. Every. Other. Editor. And you come here lecturing other people about toxicity. I am not writing here further as your continued lack of awareness and blaming of everyone else - even here after what you have done - is more than I can stomach. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note the smiley face in my comment. :) You made your comment ambiguous -- it could be read either way. Even so, it is not a nice way to speak to other people. Let99 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait, let me get this straight. Somebody is claiming that Jytdog is getting paid to hide criticism about the Paleo Diet? Is this for real? A quick perusal of the history of that page, its talk page and the AE's that it has spawned would show how ridiculous that is. He is, on the other hand, a stickler for proper sourcing and properly reflecting that sourcing. Something every editor should be really. Let99, you're trying to stick something into the lead that's not even in the article. You're being told that's wrong and your response is to assume Jytdog is a shill and try to do opposition research against him? I suggest a quick course change, an acknowledgement of where you went wrong and a striking of your claims. You're already in blockable territory for harassment. Capeo (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)He wasn'tThey weren't trying so much to stick something in the lead as to take something that was already in the lead and give it a reference. However, that reference was already objected to by another user for trying to stick it into another part of the article. After two users had rejected its inclusion by reversion, hethey stuck it in a third time, insisting that histheir version remain until there was a discussion, apparently not taking two different reverters as a sign that he had not achieved consensus. When histhat demand was ignored, that's when hethey started getting into really problem territory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal (Re: Let99)

Propose indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Not sure that counts as a "boomerang"; the initial complaint here was against himthen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No, we don't do that; blocking is a last resort, not a way of batting away people whom an admin happens to find annoying. All it takes is a "sorry, I misunderstood policy and I won't do that again" and we're done here. ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, Sorry, I didn't see that you were talking about me down here. I already did that on 01:58, 31 May 2017, so I'm not sure what all of this is about. I do hope that the admins carefully read all of my comments here and on my talk page. Edit: also this and WP:RETENTION are relevant to this incident. Let99 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, I did not seek an indef, but rather a good stiff block. But where are you seeing any sign of awareness? And since when is bringing off-wiki "opposition research" onto an article talk page, to try to win a content dispute, just "annoying"? If Let99 showed a sign that he/she "gets it" that the behavior was completely unacceptable, of course no block would be needed. As it is, there is no sign of that and we have no reason to expect that they will not continue. (I find their protestations of "what else should I do?" disingenuous at best - my sense is that their "concern" about paid editing arose after they found the fake twitter account) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My "oppose" was to the IP's proposal (indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR). Blocking is preventative not punitive; provided Let99 agrees not to do it again and gives some indication that they understand why this was so over the line, then as long as they don't cause further issues that's all that's needed. It appears that this is someone who thought they were being helpful and didn't realize why this was so inappropriate in a Wikipedia context. ‑ Iridescent 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely hear that, with regard to what you were opposing. And I agree that if we get some evidence that they "get it" there is no need for action. By now it does not appear to be forthcoming at all -- their last two edits about this have been this and this About the "helpful" thing - I believe they thought they were being helpful in trying to initially add the ref, but their subsequent behavior had nothing to do with being helpful but rather was unacceptable tactics to "win" the content dispute they got into with me. And it is that subsequent behavior -- and the risk that this behavior will continue -- that is the subject of this thread. btw they are starting to make the harangue about "toxic editor culture" everywhere they run into content disputes -- see this thread - their comments and the diffs of their disruption of a closed RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I put it to them plain as day (diff). They refused to acknowledge the issue and brought it back to the content dispute. (difff). No indication of understanding. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• I purpose that someone put this user out of our misery and move to something productive. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with that: IDHT, Battleground, CIR, Outing. No need for this person here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Let99 has learned that speculating on-wiki about undisclosed paid editing or off-wiki behaviour is pretty much forbidden here, and learned that if it's not in the body then it doesn't belong in the lede. I hope Let99 has now read about the norm WP:BRD. I think that's enough lessons learned for now, and this should be closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I have just come to this , read everything through, and following that would agree with a "stiff block" combined with a final warning. As in, once the block expires, do this again, and its indefinite. This is partly because I am not sure User:Let99 has learned anything.Daithidebarra (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you an admin? There are a lot of non-admins here for such an obscure discussion, and I'm wondering if you're friends of Jytdog, sent here for backup. This issue has already been resolved. Let99 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice for Let99 - First law of holes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Image being removed

Hi, the user BilCat is removing a picture that i did from the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(missile) First he removed it by telling that its doctored image. When i pointed out that the image in question is a derivative image created using two open source photos from Wikimedia commons. Its a derivate work that i created and have attributed it to the people who took the photos. What i am trying to do is to provide a better artistic image to the current one..so that it looks good..but it has been removed repeatedly. I have tried to restore it. Please take a look at it. Thank you.Longrangerinthesky (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not an admin issue, we don't decide content. You need to go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion, allowing the people that edit that article to decide by consensus. Continuing to revert back and forth is edit warring and can get you both blocked. So don't. Just go talk and reach consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Only to comment on the image issue: you are taking a sky bg photo, and a photo of the missile attached to a stationary plane, and creating an image to make it look like it is in flight. That is a WP:SYNTH issue and the removal of the image is completely acceptable, as you are giving the impression that that is a real photo of the missile in flight -- with perfect clarity of the markings on the missile. We do not allow that type of imagery here. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't actually check out the image until you said that, but you are absolutely correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• OP blocked 48 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, continuing after they posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

IP adding category Category:Opposition to Donald Trump to articles

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

---

72.132.30.75 (talk · contribs) has added this to several articles today. I've removed one but can someone to a reality check about the others before I carry on? The criteria for the category is "Articles relating to political opposition to Donald Trump." which is very vague. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue, but definitely a category ripe for WP:CfD as we don't have Category:Opposition to Barack Obama, Category:Opposition to George W. Bush, or Category:Opposition to Bill Clinton. All of whom had substantial political opposition. —Farix (t | c) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Various editors have removed the obvious unmerited additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Good. I was thinking that in some cases it was a BLP issue but I guess I agree not warranting any Admin action. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Islamic Political Science Mafia

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

---

This user is blocked on the basis of an unacceptable username which he or she has refused to change. Apparently this editor has left the building, so to speak. However, I just wanted to note that the editor in question responded to polite comments and instructions in a threatening manner (and not in a legally threatening manner, I must hasten to add). See here for such comments as "the Islamic Political Science Mafia, you will not be able to count on our protection" and "please stop disrespecting me as Wikipedia is not (yet)a warzone". I believe that possible further review/action may be warranted. Quis separabit? 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw they were softblocked for a username violation, checking their edits this was clearly a user who was WP:NOTHERE (and I HIGHLY doubt this was an organization). I've changed the block to a hardblock RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I was reading over contribs and about to do the same block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Islamic Political Science Mafia is block evading, using 79.76.95.187. See their messages on my Talk. Yintan  18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that IP was just blocked for block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm utterly sure you're too fast for me. Thanks. Yintan  18:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

New Userpage Patrol discovery

[155] I don't want to ping the user by mentioning them directly but could an Admin check their user page/3rd edit out at link? Pretty unusual for a brand new editor to know about sock puppetry already. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, whatever your suspicions, I can't see that there is anything actionable here, and if there was the user would have to be notified about any discussion here. I think we have to AGF unless/until the editor becomes problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

ya, just pointing it out at this point. Maybe someone will recognize a pattern from articles he touches. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like the "I'm not a sock" user page is probably in response to the accusation of being a sock on the user talk page, left there by 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who seems to have thrown around quite a few sock suspicions recently. With so little activity by this named user, and not a direct match to the previous dispute on the article, the socking accusation seems a bit premature or excessively speculative. 112.198.*.* (looks like it's an IP-hopper) probably should try to be a bit less combative and a bit more cautious with accusations of socking. Murph9000 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Should we remove the suspected sock tag on the new user's talk page? It seems to be lacking any solid evidence, and does not appear to have been followed up with anything over at SPI. Murph9000 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

rough way to start editing! I just welcomed him nicely. Removing the tag would be nice for another editor to do, show welcome to someone that appears to want to be productive. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Prolific and long-term editor refusing to reference, or reference inline, or respond to any messages

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

---

• Neddyseagoon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am opening this in the hope of starting a discussion with an editor who has contributed well in many ways to Wikipedia, by editing for more than a decade, including being a prolific article creator - according to WP:MOSTARTICLES (which is, I believe, very out of date so numbers will be higher) - Neddyseagoon is the 72nd most prolific article creator on English Wikipedia and many above him are bots. My concern is that there are serious referencing issues with every one of the many I'm coming across on New Page Patrol. Mainly, there are no inline citations, but there is an 'External links' section or similar, which may have been (although it's unclear) used as the sources. I feel after creating so many articles and editing for so long, the basic sourcing should be done correctly. A lack of inline citations is extremely difficult for any other editor to fix, as they don't know which sources were used for which bit of information, particularly difficult when the sources are not easy to get hold of (which is the case for most of them). These often end up unclear and blotted by a tag for many years, but could easily be rectified with little extra work at the start. The WP:BURDEN to make sources clear is on the creator. There are many messages on Neddyseagoon's talk page about this issue, over a long period of time, but from what I can see, in over ten years, Neddyseagoon has not responded to a single message on his/her talk page.

I would like to commend Neddyseagoon for his/her work over such a long period of time, and politely request that he/she responds to messages and creates inline sources in future. I'm only opening this after failing to manage to engage Neddyseagoon in conversation on the issue. I do think this type of editing creates real problems that other editors are spending a lot of time trying to solve, but that it is extremely difficult for them to solve, but easy for Neddyseagoon to do correctly from the start. Examples are: [156], [157] others are completely unreferenced like [158]. Articles this editor has created have been repeatedly tagged for deletion since 2012 (from looking at Talk page messages) for sourcing issues and lacking content. There are regular specific comments from New Page Patrollers and others about a lack of sources since 2013, and a message asking Neddy to stop linking dates from April 2013 (he/she still links dates in 2017). I'm not judging - I pigheadedly made mistakes with sources myself years ago - but would like Neddyseagoon to consider how this affects other editors and to please respond to messages and make citations clear and inline. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That massive talkpage needs to be cleared for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's another issue that editors have left messages about but have not been responded to. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links to Neddyseagoon's userpage and talk pages, since they're not given above. I'm rather surprised that I've never heard of him, seeing how prolific he is. No comment on the issues raised here. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Should have noted this earlier, but I went ahead and archived the page for the years 2012-2016, following the pattern that Neddyseagoon himself had established for prior years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wondered what area Neddyseagoon was creating articles in, so I clicked on a couple of the links above and found a further problem. Grigory Alexandrovich Demidov was not inter-wikied, but Italian and Russian articles exist (I have now linked them). There was a bit of untranslated Italian in the list of issue, and the text resembles content in the Russian article. I have accordingly added Translated article templates to the talk page attributing both as sources. There is a firm requirement under our licence to attribute when copying within Wikipedia, including when translating from Wikipedia in another language, no matter how loosely. Preferably the first edit summary should state this, in addition to the talk page templates. It looks as though Neddyseagoon has also been committing a form of copyvio by not doing this. (I also found a source on the Russian Wikipedia, but my ability to read Russian is insufficient to use it for footnotes, so I made it an external link). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• User:Ymblanter, could you help with your language skills? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  I will have a look tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• He developed a habit of blanking/moving his talk page as a matter of archiving, I believe. That is probably why you didn't see any of his responses but he does have them. See this. He appears to have gotten less communicative with "Please now stop telling me this...." when Kudpung raised concerns in 2011. Last comment was "I'm making stubs out from Template:rembrandt" in 2013 which was unsigned. Since he has this which mentions Ealdgyth, perhaps he would talk to him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SHE might when she wakes up in the morning. I can't remember ever actually interacting with Neddy, however. Not sure, given the editing stats, it'd make much difference, to me it looks like someone who went mostly inactive for a long time and hasn't figured out things have changed from 2007. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Neddyseagoon has edited since this discussion was started, including creating articles with the same issues [159]. I'm unsure if she reads her messages at all (I suspect she doesn't, or not regularly). She obviously has not commented here or on her Talk page thus far. I'm not sure where we go from here if Neddyseagoon is not willing to interact. Perhaps she will comment soon. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't made a user talk comment of any kind for four years; while he obviously knows what user talk is for as he's made comments in the past, this appears to be someone who's flat-out refusing to engage. It seems like a real shame, given that this is obviously a long-term contributor who's trying to help, but if he continues to edit problematically and refuses to engage either on his talk or here, this may be a case where "indefinite block until you promise to stop" will be the only option. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• When I first looked at this thread I figured this was a disagreement over reference format (inline is only one method, a list of footnotes/references at the end of the article is equally acceptable) but it seems there are other editing issues requiring a response from the user. I dislike attention-getting blocks but this is a collaborative project, and when editors want to contact you to discuss editorial issues and you don't ever respond, you are being disruptive, plain and simple. She hasn't edited any page in user talk: space at all since she last edited her own talk page in 2013; she's clearly not paying attention to it. I'm about to be away from the computer for several hours so I won't block myself but another admin who can pay attention for a bit really shouldn't hesitate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also just went to try to email her in case she's missing notifications from her talk page or something, but she doesn't have email enabled. It is entirely possible she has simply stopped looking at her talk page and isn't getting any of the messages left for her, but in that case (and without knowing) we really have no choice but to block to get her attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is all this "her" coming from? He has a big "this user is male" userbox. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so he does. I was going by Ealdgyth and Boleyn's comments above, editors who I trust to get that right. I wouldn't call that box big, really. Apologies, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth was referring to herself above and not Neddy. See this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the proposal below which seems to have come up while I was mulling over a block rationale in another tab, I have blocked Neddyseagoon (and not myself, thanks EEng) for failing to respond to messages from other editors at all for nearly four years (or maybe six, depending on how reliable their archives are). More followup on their talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• The name rang a bell, and I found this interaction from 2008. I hadn't noticed at the time that the translation occurred without attribution. I am not sure whether this user's recent editing has changed markedly from back then, but there is a list of at least some translations at User:Neddyseagoon/To do list if anyone wants to put attribution templates on these articles. I believe what would be needed is an edit summary and the use of {{translated page}} on the article talk page.

  I hope that the issues can be addressed, as it is surprising that a prolific and long-term editor would be blocked for the first time, after a discussion lasting two days. Can we try and separate the communications issues (lack of responding) from the referencing issues? The 31-hour block is for the lack of communications, and the block proposal is for the referencing issues. IMO, the referencing issues need more investigation and discussion. That should happen while waiting for the 31-hour block to expire. If editing resumes after that, still with no response, then moving to an indefinite block may be warranted at that point (but hopefully not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"After a discussion lasting two days" mischaracterizes the situation. Various editors have been trying to start a generalized discussion of Neddyseagoon's problematic editing for many years now. He last responded to any such discussion on 25 July 2013, nearly four years ago. As I explained in my block notice, I hoped the block would serve as a stimulus for him to finally participate in that discussion while prevented from editing elsewhere, but it seems he's elected to sit out the block instead (although he might just have not been around, it was a short block). I'm still hopeful he'll participate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make my point very well. What we have here is an editor where it is worth taking time and effort to establish working communications. It won't be easy, but a less brusque approach might work. If you look at his user talk page contributions just before he stopped talking to people who left him messages, you can see that he does understand the issues, but isn't the most voluble communicator. See here and here. This looks like a classic case where an attempt to engage with the editor may work better than attempting to impose authority (in the form of a block). Some people don't respond well to blocks and what they may perceive as threats. A personalised message on his talk page, rather than in the pressured environment of an ANI thread with an indefinite block discussion in progress, may be more likely to get a productive response. I am going to try that now. It may not work, but if anyone thinking of closing the discussion could give this approach time, I'd appreciate it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Update: I left this message. Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I agree with your approach, though I think it is the same approach which Boleyn tried on 14 May without response. I don't see much reason to expect that your kind message will have any different effect from the series of kind messages which preceded it somewhat recently, such as [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], or [165], or [166]; all of which seem to have been ignored. I don't think this is a case where the user is not reading messages on his talk page, since he's clearly used it before, he started adding WikiProject banners ([167], [168], [169], [170]) after this suggestion to do so, and he does (or did) follow advice to add translation attributions in the past, so it seems to me like he's engaging selectively (and quietly) rather than not engaging at all. In my mind this suggests that he is aware of this discussion and choosing to ignore it. Of course I would like to be wrong about this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the earlier approach by Boleyn on 14 May. I hadn't been aware of that. I did scroll back through the user talk page, seeing the ten page curation reviews left by Boleyn. Reading through those, the attempts to communicate and the frustration at not getting any response are very clear. It is really difficult to make any progress with anything like this when one side is just not talking. He seems happy to do certain types of editing, but not others, but trying to force someone to communicate or edit in a certain way rarely works. In some areas of Wikipedia, people build on what others have done, even if that involves a lot of work to bring articles up to a certain standard. In other areas (BLPs especially), minimum standards have risen, and the burden is placed firmly on the people initially creating content. The note by Piotrus about WikiProject assessment tags is interesting. Piotrus included the comment "You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually." That could be said about a lot of Wikipedia: that you don't have to do X because someone else will do it eventually. If a further block is placed, it should be clear whether it is for issues with article editing, or with failures to communicate and respond to user talk page messages. If Wikipedia:Blocking policy or Wikipedia:Disruptive editing do not explicitly cover failing to respond to user talk page messages, maybe they should (following discussions in the relevant places, which might bring together previous examples). Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think those policies do not cover "failing to respond" as a blockable offense, and I would say that not responding to messages is not problematic in and of itself. However, when an editor is doing things which other editors object to, and they repeatedly fail or decline to respond while continuing to do the objectionable things, then this can be seen as disruptive. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing covers this in a few different subsections ("One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" is one). Wikipedia:Competence is required also has words about editors who don't interact well with others in a collaborative project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And what I mean by that is that if a user does things that are objectionable, and also either refuses to participate in or is genuinely unaware of discussions aiming to rehabilitate the objectionable behaviour, they cannot be forced to participate, but then the only option remaining to prevent more disruption is blocking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit strange that what to do when someone refuses to or fails to respond to messages is only described in two essays and not in any policies, unless I am missing something here? It has been a number of days since Neddyseagoon fell silent (no editing since 30 May). I am not sure the discussion here or below (the block proposal) covered this, though it is fairly predictable that this would happen. If someone has problems engaging with people on their user talk page, they are even less likely to engage here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm deeply conflicted about what should be done here. But I feel constrained to point out that I followed a further link here to Gerda Arendt's query about Leise. I found an unattributed translation from the German article with inaccuracies, and was unable to find any source, even looking at the German article as it had existed at the time, and also at the Swedish and Finnish articles, for the statement Gerda had queried, that they were "often unanimous" (meaning in unison). I did find a source very close to the German, and an old and useful source, and a bit of different information in the Swedish Wikipedia, all of which I was able to use to make the article a bit better, and at least one error had been introduced by a disambiguator ... but this is the second one I've checked and unfortunately the sample indicates that Neddyseagoon's long list of articles all need to be checked for unattributed translation, and also that they should probably be checked for accuracy :-( Based on Leise, I do not believe he should be translating from German, and there appear to be other languages he has translated from that he is not able to read well. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that articles in the German Wikipedia are often without references, - they seem to think that an official website is enough, and that is often copied word by word. I often create unreferenced articles when (only) translating, and then have to look for refs afterwards. The other day, I had a university up for deletion because it started without refs. We can't blame an editor for the habits of a different Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a different problem that makes things worse. Unfortunately, the real problems with that article were that it appears to have been copyvio by failure to give attribution and that it was a bad translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Block proposal

Much as I dislike it, I'll get the ball rolling with a formal proposal:

Now that he's been made aware of this thread, if Neddyseagoon continues to create unreferenced articles or unattributed cut-and-paste articles, and does not respond to concerns either here or on his own talkpage, he will be indefinitely blocked from editing until he agrees to comply with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, verification and copyright violation.

• Support as proposer. ‑ Iridescent 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is not the first editor (named and IP) that I have seen who uses the "as along as I don't respond to talk page messages I can edit in any manner that I want" strategy. If this causes them to discuss things then a block will have served its purpose. Otherwise it will stop the disruptive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support C'mon Neddy. What we really want is for you to start communicating per WP:ENGAGE. Start working with your fellow editors. Don't let it come to this...pipe up.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Commenting out my support for now and hoping that Carcharoth is successful.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm truly sorry, but this is already long overdue. As noted above, there've been continuing problems with attribution of copied or translated material (the numerous talk-page notices from CorenSearchBot mostly relate to that), but there's also been more serious outright copyright violation, as for example at Violet Manners, Duchess of Rutland. The complete lack of any response to the many messages left about this means that we have no idea whether the user even understands that there is a problem. I hope that Ivanvector's block will be converted to indef, as proposed here – and that the user will quickly be persuaded to communicate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and hope Neddyseagoon engages and these issues can be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support An editor as prolific as Neddy ought to have been Autopatrolled long since. As things stand it's inconceivable that Neddy would be granted Autopatrolled (or that anybody would be inclined to nominate him). Regrettably, it's insupportable for Neddy to continue without engaging and improving. Cabayi (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since you brought the Autopatrolled bit up, it should be mentioned that this editor has received that and had it taken away a few times for these issues. See their user rights log.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As proposed and per MarnetteD. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, regretfully. Hopefully Neddy responds and this is not necessary. Bakilas (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per MarnetteD. Interaction is essential, the head-in-the-sand strategy just isn't on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunate but necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Reliably sourced content being removed constantly

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

---

I added Daniel Craig to the List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater last year and since then 5 users (Irish Leprechaun, RalphMachiato, Marty Hilton, IrishScribbler and DrKatz999) have removed him and given absolutely subjective excuses that include "Craig was not talking about himself in that interview", "The translation is poor", "The article is badly written, so its accuracy is highly questionable", "The source is badly written and makes no sense", "This is no more than a throwaway statement to avoid the topic of religious beliefs. There is no documented proof this interview even took place" and "Such claim is most likely throwaway remark to avoid going off topic".

The only problem is that the text that I have used as source is an interview published by DIE ZEIT, a respected German newspaper that meets all criteria to be considered a reliable source, and in that article Daniel Craig states unequivocally "Ich bin Atheist", leaving no doubt as to his (dis)belief.

It seems serious to me that several different users could not accept a reliable source, questioned its writing/translation, made subjective assumptions as to what Craig's intentions were when answering the question made to him and even doubted that the interview actually happened. I really see no reason for so much suspicion. I do not discard the possibility that some of them may be puppets for the same person and I ask someone with a higher authority than me to check this out and instruct me and the other users as to how to solve this issue.

Thanks. Clausgroi (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Clausgroi see DRN. ANI is not the place for content disputes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest they check out WP:Dispute resolution instead. I don't see that this necessarily should go to the noticeboard. For starters, it doesn't look like it's been discussed at the article talk page at all which tends to be the most basic step in dispute resolution and required before posting on DRN. Further, if the dispute is over whether or not something is a reliable source, WP:RS/N is probably the best bet. Or maybe WP:BLP/N is the dispute arises mostly because it's a WP:BLP case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, all of the editors removing this content are SPAs with remarkably similar edit summaries and (usually) zero other contributions, so an argument can be made that Clausgroi's next stop should actually be WP:SPI, regardless of the merits of the content or its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Squeamish Ossifrage, you are surely right. Your DR has already been "procedurally closed", Clausgroi, and I've opened an SPI. There may be a problem in that several of the probable socks are already stale — they've been used so little — but we'll see. Thank you very much for reporting, Clausgroi. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

• Update: A checkuser has blocked the two live ones, DrKatz999 and IrishScribbler, and I have blocked the rest per WP:DUCK. Clausgroi, please let me know if you should see more of them pop up and I'll semi the page. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

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

Sjsiwkwoswkwosmosmk's vandalism

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

---

Sjsiwkwoswkwosmosmk has been vandalising. I have spent the last ten minuets making sure he does no more. see his contributions for more info. The garmine ^(talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user as a vandal-only account. In the future you can head to AIV to report these instances, which is the place for them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have spent the last ten minuets making sure he does no more.: If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your encyclopedia. EEng 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User engaged in spamming

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

---

Vahid alpha (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in spamming.

In the following diffs...:

• Revision 784070258 in Virtualization
• Revision 784071413 in Computer simulation
• Revision 784071706 in Stochastic process
• Revision 784072006 in Differential equation
• Revision 784073041 in Time-scale calculus
• Revision 784076209 in C++
• Revision 784078298 in Chemistry
• Revision 784078628 in Analytical chemistry
• Revision 784081125 in Economic system
• Revision 784081383 in Mechanical engineering
• Revision 784081964 in Statistical signal processing
• Revision 784091323 in Facebook
• Revision 784091702 in United States
• Revision 784091946 in Google

...one can observe the following editing traits:

• They were all done on June 6.
• A link to a low-quality PDF article hosted on icdst.org is contributed.
• The link is contributed in the guise of a source, but they don't seem to be attempts to establish verifiability for anything.
• In all but one case, the edit is marked as "minor".
• Quality of contribution is not a consideration.
• These contributions are stark deviations from this user's past editing pattern that was Iran-related.

LocalNet (my esteemed colleague) has sent him a warning, to which he didn't pay due regards.

I believe at least a ban is due.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Going by this edit to his user page, it looks rather like an attempt to promote his own website. A quick look at the website suggests that it's some sort of crawler which gobbles up content from other sites and republishes it. While the site seems to say it will do copyright takedowns, I'm not convinced that it actually makes strong efforts to respect copyright in the first place. A quick sample of the refs added did not convince me that they were good refs for the adjacent content. In Wikipedia terms, for any legitimate references, I strongly believe that it would be vastly superior to have the original location of the reference (in addition to any archive URLs). Right now, my overall opinion of this is that it's nothing more than spamming. Murph9000 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• He also tried to remove this whole discussion. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, and some WP:POINTy reverts which do not appear to be constructive, and look somewhat retaliatory.[171][172] Murph9000 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Block indefinitely. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked. After a bit of background research (I won't reveal it here for WP:Outing concerns, but another admin can contact me by email if they'd like to check), I have indef blocked and have suggested they can be unblocked if they promise not to promote that site or post any links to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, I will say that I can find no independent mentions of "International Center for Developing Science and Technology" on a Google search - just lots of hits on the site itself. So it's clearly not a respected scientific publisher. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  I have reverted the recent edits to the user page which added the same and similar links, on the basis of promotion in user space, leaving the earlier content. Murph9000 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Abuse on the Romani Wikipedia

The English Wikipedia has no control over what happens on other wikis; please raise your concerns on the Romani Wikipedia, not here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 11:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• It is unclear whether Romani Wikipedia has a functional community. If admins are unavailable at Romani wiki, then the lack of responsive admins can be raised at Meta:Wikimedia Forum. Meta wiki is where global or cross-wiki issues are handled. Alsee (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Please hide the edit filter that says "F*ck Romani people" and "delete Gypsy wikipedia" and hide all of this IP's address's edits (37.35.151.194). Their edits are highly abusive, inflammatory, vulgar, harmful, illegal, racist and threatening. Their edits include promoting assassination, hacking threats, killing and murder....

This edit from 92.86.6.214 is abusive and racist too. It says "f*ck Gypsies". Hide this edit as well. Hide the edit filter. Use RevisionDelete.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&action=history https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=45635 https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/37.35.151.194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.33.93.229 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

This is English Wikipedia, we can't deal with issues on other language Wikipedias. Please raise your concerns on Romani Wikipedia / rmy.wikipedia.org. English Wikipedia administrators do not have administrator rights on other Wikipedias, in general. Murph9000 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

another kid at school

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

---

I was talking with a kid at school, and they said they were going to vandalize, from school. They have, here and here. Also here. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Admonished by ArbCom, continues more of same anyways

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

---

• DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary: Prior admonishment by ArbCom for personal attacks [173]. Continues more of same, after warning by admin [174].

Two admins recommended this recent behavior by DHeyward (talk · contribs) be dealt with in a venue separate from AE. Admin Masem [175] and admin Thryduulf who said: "The personal attacks by DHeyward do merit action being taken".

Bringing here to ANI for admin action:

Admonished by ArbCom for personal attacks

• 03:39, 4 June 2016 - Ruling by the Arbitration Committee is: "DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks."

Diffs of recent personal attacks

1. 00:53, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "And you're being idiotic"
2. 00:58, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "oh fuck off you busybody numbskull"
3. 01:00, 4 June 2017 - this time visible on talk page during previously constructive discussion immediately above on page: "there are a number of busybody numbskills"
4. 01:42, 4 June 2017 - Violation of guide.decor, casting aspersions, in this AE request itself. "Sagecandor is being a busybody"

Continues personal attacks after warning by admin to stop

1. 01:08, 4 June 2017 - Warned by admin Thryduulf. "DHeyward: I don't care what your motivations are, your edit summaries on the talk page and above are personal attacks. If you persist you will be blocked. Thryduulf"
2. 01:14, 4 June 2017 - After that warning, continued the personal attacks with: "I refer all busybody numbskulls to ANI. They are used to them and there is much fucking off on that page."

---

Thanks to admins for looking into this ! Sagecandor (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If I didn't at this point consider myself too involved to personally take action I would likely have already blocked for 24 hours. DHeyward's previous blocks do not appear to have been related to personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked for the Twinkle default 31 hours for personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Request: Due to the ArbCom case, can the block please be logged at the Enforcement log ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Logged it at at the Enforcement log. Sagecandor (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the log, the Boing! said Zebedee specifically said the block should not be logged. ~ GB fan 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Directly relevant to ArbCom sanction. I hope others in the future somehow are able to easily find this history out, and know how to mention it at AE if necessary, without having difficulty finding the history, as I did. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have also unarchived this. You shouldn't close a discussion that you are involved in. The way to get it added is to discuss it and if the consensus is to add then either Boing will add or someone else uninvolved will. ~ GB fan 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay that sounds alright to me ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am troubled by User:Sagecandor's behavior here. Looking into the history, Sagecandor drops an edit warring template onto DHeyward's talk page. Look for yourself, but I didn't see any edit warring that merited a template to a regular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DHeyward). Next, Sagecandor drops the DS alert onto DHeyward's talk page for American Politics (note the article both users were editing was the recent London terror attack). Such templates are disruptive, and exactly the reason why we ask people not to template the regulars WP:DTTR. DHeyward was well within his rights to ask Sagecandor to fuck off his talk page for this.

Next, Sagecandor runs off to AE, where the report is closed by User:NeilN as not under ARBPA2. Finally Sagecandor comes here and copies his AE filing, logs the ANI block to the AE page, and then tries to archive this report. This is incredibly troubling behavior.

In light of the history of this interaction, could the blocking admin User:Boing! said Zebedee please consider an unblock due to the disruptive and baiting actions by Sagecandor? "You're being idiotic" is not a personal attack but a description of someone's actions. A "Fuck off" on a talk page is not a personal attack, and "busybody numbskull" is an mild personal attack at best, and Sage's behavior I've identified here should have been taken into consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: This is the clearest baiting, and if needed to prevent more, a possible boomerang block for Sagecandor. —JJBers 16:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Some interesting points raised by Mr Ernie there. I certainly think that User:Sagecandor should at least explain those templates. If they were not directly related to ongoing editing issues, they could certainly be seen as baiting. The insistence since then on trying to get it logged on AE is also rather unsavoury. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've reverted Sagecandor at WP:AE. Do not add personal notes to closed discussions. WP:AE is a bit different than ANI. Once an admin closes it, no one (including other admin) should modify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've now read this, and the adding material at WP:AE after close, logging after the blocking admin said don't, and the templates, all look like baiting to me. I would ask Boing! reconsider. It isn't a cut and dry thing, but I can see where a little rudeness on DH's part might have been a reaction to being baited. As for blocking Sagecandor, I don't know. His actions do look bad but I'm on the fence and wouldn't argue against a decision either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • As it's looking like there might have been some baiting here and it's not as cut and dry as it first appeared (and as DH has agreed not to repeat such comments), I have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Sort of drive-by comment: After looking at the diffs, I agree that Sagecandor's conduct seems questionable to the point meriting a sanction or reprimand. No opinion on an early unblock since DHeyward's behaviour was gratuitously jerkish too - maybe I am being naive but I've never seen such comments help anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'll defer to Dennis Brown on the AE page. The AE notices to user talk pages are not warnings, but notifications only. I agree with the actions taken by Boing! said Zebedee. I did not mean for anything to come off as baiting. I stand by the assessment of Ruling by the Arbitration Committee is: "DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks." And then the user willfully ignoring said admonishment by the Arbitration Committee. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Blocking admin has unblocked, and I'm quite heartened by the fact that blocking admin noted: "DH has agreed not to repeat such comments". I will choose to respectfully defer to judgement of admin Boing! said Zebedee. I apologize if anything came across as baiting. That was not the intent and I am sorry about that. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've posted an apology to DHeyward, and I hope we can all move on from this and focus our efforts on building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry if anything came across as baiting, that was not my intent. I wish to say I'm sorry to DHeyward if that was the result and I'm quite glad he agreed not to repeat the comments. I hope we can all learn from this. Sagecandor (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Pardon, but who is 'we'? Your apology to DH is excellent progress, but other admins and editors have also made points here that you may wish to address. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it and I'm sorry. We means all of us, everyone here. Thank you that you feel my apology to DH is excellent progress. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Apology reverted [176], which is totally his right to do that on his user talk page. I feel badly if my actions upset DHeyward, and I regret my decisions escalated rather than deescalated the situation. I should have tried posting first to DHeyward's talk page with a written post instead of templates. I'll sure remember that for future discussions, and hopefully we can address things by talking them out together. Sagecandor (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an Arbitration / AE issue, per the close. I read through the evidence although I didn't participate (didn't see a need) and agree it wasn't an AE issue. You bit off more than you can chew here and claiming the highest possible offense instead of just bringing it to ANI and letting us deal with it. They could have blocked at AE for incivility, btw. Not all sanctions that are dished out there are Arb sanctions. They must have felt it was borderline or they would have made a non-Arb sanction right there. We do that all the time. Mainly, you need to review your actions and know when to drop the stick. And perhaps thicken up your skin a bit. People should not tell others to fuck off, as a general rule, but that doesn't make it sanction worthy. Continuing to add to log, add to AE and other actions do seem a bit like grave dancing. Best to just report, leave it to the admin to dish out the sanctions and file the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Dennis Brown, you're certainly right that I bit off more than I can chew. You're correct that I should've just reported and left it to the admins to do the rest and defer to their judgment. You're totally right that I should've dropped the stick. And you're wise to tell me to try to thicken up my skin a bit, I'll try to work on that. Sagecandor (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Boing! said Zebedee, I have been unblocked for comments I made 12 hours prior. They were intended to be sharp, but bot attacks. An edit warring template on my talk page when I didn't make a single revert. Followed by AP2 template about London attacks was a bit much. It's annoying to be templated and dragged forum to forum by an editor who apparently harbors a grudge. I am disturbed that a block, which is supposed to be preventative was applied many hours after the AE request was closed with no action and many hours after I had stopped editing. I didn't even have the opportunity to reply here. It's been over a year since the comments I made resulted in an admonishment. My comments addressed here were in edit summaries to my talk page. This is a severe case of wikihounding and I am disappointed it was successful. Sagecandor continues to try and shop this as an AE issue, noted just above, that has already been closed with no action. I feel Sagecandor is rather insincere after wikihounding me to two forums and the fact he brought my request to stay off my talk page back here is indication of a desire for self-preservation rather than contrition. ---DHeyward (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, DHeyward, it was wrong of me to leave the template when you had not done 3RR. You're correct that I was wrong to template you. I don't harbor a grudge and I'm sorry I've upset you. I realize now that you tend to speak with more of a sharp tone, and I'm glad you didn't intent for anything to be attacks, thank you for saying that. Sagecandor (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Gosh, I was just saying three threads up that this topic (June 2017 London attacks) is "another great example of why creating articles on breaking news just isn't worth the drama." It hasn't even been 24 hours since this event, and already we have here a second ANI thread centered on the same article! To finish quoting myself from the earlier thread: "I propose the article be deleted and then started again from scratch in 72 hours when the wheat sources have been separated from the chaff and tempers have cooled." EEng 17:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're totally right, EEng, there was a lot of activity going on, and I should have taken a step back and let cooler heads prevail. Sagecandor (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I have made a grand total of 3 edits and 1 move of that page. No edits were reverts. For that, I have been dragged to two forums and accused of numerous violations. The problem isn't the article. Forum shoppers are the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with the behavior of various editors in this matter. My point is that this kind of kerfuffle happens all the time with "breaking news" and so we just shouldn't have an article at all for the first N hours of certain events, to avoid all the drama. People can look elsewhere for news in the meantime. Exactly what kinds of events, and how long to embargo them, is a big open question. (I'm not even necessarily saying this event would be of the kind that should come under such a restriction -- but it's a great example of how out-of-control things get, very quickly.) EEng 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward is right. As I said, I was wrong to give DHeyward a disruption warning. DHeyward is totally correct, though he could've been more active at the talk page of the article, his edits were not close to 3RR. Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggest close. One party has been unblocked, the other is falling all over him/herself with contrition, making a boomerang highly unlikely absent evidence that the contrition is insincere or missing the point. Regarding edit warring and its warning templates, Sagecandor should read more of WP:EW, in particular the last sentence of its lead. The mistaken belief that 3RR vio is the same as edit warring is guaranteed to cause trouble later on. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandruss, I've read through WP:Edit warring, and also paid close attention to reading over the last sentence of the lead of that page, as you suggested. Thank you for your recommendation. You are right about the fact that 3RR vio is not the same as edit warring, and it won't cause trouble later on. Thank you for your helpful insight. Sagecandor (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering all of the other users talk pages Sagecandor has visited, the contrition is a planned strategic withdrawal. The premise of the difference of 3RR and edit warring is lost here. I didn't violate 3RR or 1RR or even 0RR. Nor was I involved in the edit war driven by Sagecandor and Thyrdulf and whoever else they were fighting with. The accusations templates were ridiculous on their face as was the block - the blocking admin should have been a bit more diligent. Had I been so inclined, I'd have not asked for an unblock and let it play out. It's really only a matter of time before Sagecandor is indeffed. I just hope it doesn't involve me as dealing with him is a giant time sink. Cheers. --DHeyward (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward is right that he did't violate 3RR or 1RR or even 0RR, that was definitely a mistake on my part. DHeyward is totally correct that the templates were wrong of me to place on his user talk page. I'm sorry I've upset DHeyward. DHeyward is correct that this has taken up a lot of time and I'm sorry for that. I certainly hope not to be indeffed. I wish to express good faith to DHeyward, that in the future, we might work together amicably. I'll certainly do my part. Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. Please strike all your false accusations above. You were adamant that I receive a AE sanction. Strike all your false accusations above. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope we can communicate better in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

All your contrition is trite when you leave the accusations you admit were wrong. Strike your accusations or withdraw your insincere apologies. It's obvious that it's false if you will not retract your false accusations. It's the window to your true character. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm focused on research for writing new articles. I'm going to avoid these types of interactions if at all possible for a good while. I've learned a lot from this situation and I appreciate greatly all those who commented in this thread and took their time to give me advice. I thank you all very much. Sagecandor (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Joefromrandb

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

---

I recently had a dispute with Joefromrandb at the David Duke article. He removed the description of Duke as a "Holocaust denier" from the lead of the article, and continued to remove it, despite being reverted by myself and Grayfell. Eventually Joefromrandb was persuaded to revert himself at the Duke article, and matters seemed to be resolved, but unfortunately, Joefromrandb chose to direct some uncivil abuse at me on Talk:David Duke. He made this comment, which I removed, as talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not for nonsense and random abuse and uncivil comments directed at other users. I warned Joefromrandb for his disruptive editing, but to no avail, as witness this, this, and this. I have continued to remove his uncivil abuse as it is pure vandalism and has nothing to do with improving or discussing the article. I propose that Joefromrandb be blocked if he refuses to accept that Talk:David Duke is for discussing the associated article and not for directing abuse, uncivil comments, and general nonsense at other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I won't bother restoring it at the talk page yet again. I'll just say it here: fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care what you say here, within reason. You do need to accept, however, that the David Duke talk page is for discussing the article, not for directing random abuse and nonsense at other editors. I would not have removed your comment for incivility if it had some (any) relevance to improving the article; but a comment that is simply about abusing me and has nothing to do with improving the article is pure vandalism. A block (or appropriate warning from an admin) would be a suitable response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't know the first thing about improving an article if it bit you on the ass. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many things I could say in response to that, but I'll content myself with noting that by engaging in disruptive editing by continuing to abuse me here, instead of recognizing that you made a serious mistake, you are strengthening the case for a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator(talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Good luck with that. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your latest edit to Talk:David Duke is this, which came complete with the edit summary, "I'm removing this puerile threat; if it's restored, my response of "fuck off" will accompany it". First, the comment by me you which removed was not a "threat". I did not "threaten" you with anything, Joefromrandb. I noted that I would report you for edit warring at the article if you did not self-revert, which was an appropriate response to your extremely disruptive edit warring, which involved persistently removing the well-cited statement that Duke is a Holocaust denier. Second, no, talk pages are not for directing random abuse with no relevance to improving an article (eg, "fuck off") at other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb doesn't seem to understand why this behavior would cause tension. Utterly bizarre. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note, in no way was I "persuaded" to revert myself. I reverted myself upon finding verification of Duke actually making such statements. It had nothing at all to do with any juvenile threats of being "reported". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  My note that I would report you for edit warring was not a threat. It was an appropriate response to the persistent disruptive editing that you were engaged in. Removing random nonsense like "fuck off" with no relevance to an improving an article is appropriate, but your edit here is not. You do not get to remove a comment that actually has relevance to improving an article because the editor who made it refuses to accept your "fuck off" vandalism of the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I do. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No, you do not. WP:TALK does not give "tit for tat" as an acceptable reason for removing a talk page comment. Editors concerned with the David Duke article have a legitimate interest in knowing that you were informed that you would be reported for edit warring if you persisted in such behavior. Stop editing disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• This editor (Joefromrandb) needs a nap. An admin could enhance the prospects for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not a meaningful comment unless you make it unambiguously clear who you are referring to. If by any chance you were referring to me, I'm going to stand by my position that Joefromrandb does not have the right to remove a comment informing him that he would be reported for edit warring if he kept it up. That comment is a relevant part of talk page discussion, and anyone concerned with the article has a legitimate interest in knowing that Joefromrandb was so informed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • apologies -- clarified -- perhaps remove this post and yours immediately above to avoid cluttering the discussion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Better to leave it for the record, I think. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• So no actual admins watching this thread then? Because I cannot see how Joe's comments do not fall under personal attacks either here or at the article. Likewise even a brief look at their contribution history shows they have a habit of incivility. Its also clear that very little has changed since their RFC/U in 2013. ANI/AN archives show reports of incivility and edit-warring since then - and in line with their current behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't myself describe "fuck off" as a personal attack, though it is uncivil and disruptive. It amounts to vandalism of the talk page, since it doesn't in any way form part of a good faith effort to improve the article. The edits made by Joefromrandb subsequent to that comment suggest it is simply part of a large disruptive pattern. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • "You wouldn't know the first thing about improving an article if it bit you on the ass." is a completely unambiguous personal attack. (Which was the one that I was actually referring to) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that comment may be a personal attack, but as personal attacks go, it's trivial. I don't care about it. It's the overall disruption that concerns me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The incivility is just one problem with his behavior, from what I'm seeing. The other is his constant bare assertions. It seems like he's using this sort of language just for the sake of doing so. Definitely sets off WP:NOTHERE warning bells in my mind. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is, while your skin may be thick, when we ignore personal attacks and incivility on ourselves, we are also responsible for inflicting the editor's behaviour on others - who may be more sensitive to aggressive uncivil behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• WP:NOTHERE. Yeah, he really did say that. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did. I get the feeling you don't really care about any of this. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this particular issue- and I have taken no position on it- this is rather the antithesis to being WP:NOTHERE :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not if all (or most) the edits are of this...quality...which, given the history over several years that OID mentions, may be the case. ansh666 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone's motivation for editing here can change. It certainly seems Joefromrandb is apathetic about the gravity of this situation and does not care who sees his reprehensible conduct, even in this venue where administrators could block him without a nanosecond's hesitation and would go about their day as if he didn't exist. It began with him removing something from the WP:LEAD that summarized points made elsewhere in the article (per that policy, citations are not necessary in the lead paragraph as long as what is said there is backed up by WP:RS elsewhere in the article, which this was), then while he did revert and admit his mistake he behaved in what I can only describe as a deliberately antagonizing manner towards other editors, including the use of blatant personal attacks. It sounds like he might have cared at one point, but stopped very recently. Someone who's here to build an encyclopedia doesn't stoop that low without losing his motivation to contribute constructively, in my book. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, your continued battleground conduct, incivility, and personal attacks are clearly disruptive and are causing the discussions to degrade from the main issues in which they were focused on solving. Looking at your continued behavior in this ANI discussion alone, its become quite clear that a block is the only way that's going to prevent it from continuing any further. Your responses to the request of others that it stops have only come with more battleground conduct, and that is not appropriate or constructive to the project. You are blocked for 24 hours and reminded to follow Wikipedia's policies on civility and battleground conduct, and to refrain from making personal attacks toward others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Sandbox copyvio-revdel needed

All deleted, nac, SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

---

• Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Posting here due to there being no chance of a {{copyvio-revdel}} tag surviving on the page itself.

First

URL: http://www.getcontrolmaestro.com/company-history.html

783289142 to 783289196 (2 revs) (copyvios)

Second

Source unknown, but feels like a possible WP:DUCK copyvio. It's clearly pasted in from outside.

783787982 (1 rev)

Third

URL: https://www.estuate.com/about-us

783905749 to 783905758 (2 revs) (copyvios)

Thanks.

Murph9000 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done all of those. Your second diff is taken from here. Hut 8.5 21:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Nazi troll? Nazi troll!

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

---

• Rittmeester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I don't know her or his beliefs, but Rittmeester's contributions in the past three weeks suggest the presence of a Nazi troll.

I first came across Rittmeester on May 17 at Jewish history. The Holocaust section of the article uses a photo that shows dead bodies. Its caption, a generic true statement about the Holocaust ("During World War II, the Holocaust occurred, in which Nazi Germany carried out a systematic state-sponsored extermination (genocide) of approximately six million European Jews."), was misleading, because it implied that the bodies were victims of the Nazis. Rittmeester "corrected" the caption to say "Victims of British Bombing of Nordhausen in World War II on April 3&4 1945." After doing a few minutes of research, I was able to figure out what had happened. I wrote what I thought was a complete and NPOV caption: "Bodies of inmates of the Mittelbau-Dora Nazi concentration camp who died during British bombing raids on April 3 and 4, 1945". In my edit summary, I wrote: "fixing caption -- please don't engage in historical revisionism".

The following day, Rittmeester wrote on my talk page: "please don't engage in historical revisionism" "Why not? The caption of that image was clearly misleading. This image is being used to proof systematic killing by Nazis when in fact is shows victims of British Bombing raids. Your new caption is in order though. Thank you. As for revisionism, I recommend you watch this documentary. I don't believe any honest person can believe that Nazis gassed anyone in WW2 after watching this. [link to Youtube video omitted]"

On May 29 and 31, Rittmeester wrote at Talk:Anti-Slavic sentiment that the "Nazis did NOT regard Slavs as 'subhuman'". On June 5, Rittmeester wrote at Talk:Soap made from human corpses that the existing discussion was "ridiculous" because "obviously" the Nazis shaved the heads of their guests prisoners to "prevent the spread of lice and ... typhus". Oh, the Nazis killed 11 to 17 million people for humanitarian reasons. Why didn't they just say so?

This behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I corrected a) misleading caption of an image and b) it is accepted mainstream historical view that Nazis did not turn Jews into soap. Where's the trolling here? I find it more disturbing that you apparently try to shut down my account because you seem to dislike that a goyim corrected some of the inaccuracies in this Wiki about the Holocaust. What's even more disturbing is that you removed my contribution on 2 talk-pages. The whole point of TALK pages is to have discourse, not censorship. Rittmeester (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this one can be resolved. Sagecandor (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorinbotirla

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

---

Sorinbotirla And I and a few other folks got This.I think I stopped just in time.The garmine ^(talk) 13:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Impersonator causing disruption.

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

---

User:Duffbeerformee (note ee at end) is using a bad user name, impersonating User:Duffbeerforme (one e at end) and is disruptively editing. [177] removing someone elses talk page comment. [178] Continuing the ongoing reinsertion of questionable content at Jack McCauley without engaging in discussion on the talk page, continuing on from IP hoppers [179]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Also appears to be blatant case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Recurring vandalism on Keith Cowing

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

---

Looks like a set of Lockheed Martin IPs don't like this space blogger. See here, here, here, and here. Cheers. --Rory096 19:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 166.21.100.0/29 for two weeks, PC protected article for two months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued harassment from IP user

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

---

I am a dynamic IP user whose IP address changes constantly for some reason. These are three of the IP addresses that I have used for the past few days 121.214.44.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 121.219.136.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and currently 58.164.100.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to insist that I am a sockpuppet of a blocked user called AkoAyMayLobo (talk · contribs). I have proven them wrong and given them evidence as to why they are wrong. I posted this on their talk page proving them wrong, yet they continue to harass me. Xdeluna (talk · contribs) also confirmed that my story was true. I can't go to a single page on Wikipedia without seeing their sockpuppet templates on my talk page. Could someone please help me solve this problem. @There'sNoTime: I remember you told me that if I had any problems I could come and ask you for help. I am the same user as 101.160.50.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you helped me solve this issue in July 2016, thank you. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

I recommend creating an account to avoid issues where you're confused with other editors, false sockpuppet allegations, etc. If anonymity is your concern, you're better off with an account because your IP address is hidden. It takes about ten seconds to register and requires no personal information. —Guanaco 03:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, though it looks like this sort of matter has arisen before.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have never been in contact with them until a few days ago. I noticed that they post a lot of sockpuppet templates on many user's pages, I am not a sockpuppet though. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Vanamonde93 may have the right idea.

• User_talk:NeilN#I.27m_sorely_tempted...
• User_talk:Vanjagenije#Disruptive_editing
• User_talk:Materialscientist#Unruly_IP_editor

Be a lot easier if you all registered accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: If you look at my edit history you will see that I make constructive edits, I should not be held accountable for the actions initially started by 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs) when they said this to me on Sunday. Of course if one is accused of something that they know is not true, they would defend themselves. I began ignoring their messages if you looked at my edit history you would see this, however the constant templates and accusations against me has led me to come back into the argument. I do not want this to continue that is why I came here to cease the harassment. If you were accused of something that you know is not true, would you not do the same? (58.164.100.14 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Also I did not start any of those discussions that you listed above, this is the only proper discussion I have actually started in regards to this issue. (58.164.100.14 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

@NeilN: Given that the OP here seems to be making some effort to edit constructively, whereas IP112's only edits are related to highlighting the OP's edits, I've issued IP112 a final warning to drop the matter. Ks0stm asked them to do more or less that after their last SPI post, but they have not done so. If these continue warring against each other, we can block them both. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Support this final warning of 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and endorse a block if they continue their harassment of the OP. I feel like all of 58.164.100.14's edits would be constructive if they didn't have to deal with the harassment, so I would not recommend blocking them.

@58.164.100.14: I really do recommend you create an account, primarily for three reasons: First, it allows both yourself and other users to keep better track of your contributions, rather than having them spread across IPs which could be shared by multiple users. Second, it would allow you to set user preferences, have a watchlist, use gadgets like Twinkle and navigation popups, and have custom user scripts, like I have at User:Ks0stm/vector.js. Finally, it would allow you to receive Echo notifications. In the end, do you have to create an account? No. But creating an account provides many more benefits beyond just those I listed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your efforts. @Ks0stm: thank you for the suggestion and the message, I will definitely think about it. Also my IP address changed again, still the same user though. (120.144.166.4 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

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

Disruption and old socking by Leviathan648

• Leviathan648 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.106.151.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bob's Burgers (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bob's Burgers (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The name account used to be named S hannon434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP is blocked for 1 year by EdJohnston for edit warring over colours on TV seasons and for advising multiple accounts (see block log history).

Leviathan has resumed the edit warring over season color and images that the IP was blocked for. Will give diffs from Bob's Burgers seasons. Note the edit summaries complain about the mod DVD cover and both the IP and Leviathan are changing to the same hex color.

• Season 3 - Leviathan 1 2 vs. IP [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]. Before the IP, back in 2016, Leviathan (then Shannon) did the same thing as well as January 2017 [185]
• Season 4 - Leviathan 1, 2 and vs. IP [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]. Note​ that Leviathan (then Shannon) did this before the IP in January 2017 [191]

See this February 2017 discussion on their talk page by EdJohnston regarding socking and the block/unblock requests in the following sections.

The same thing can be seen on Bob's Burgers (season 2) and Bob's Burgers (season 5). Given the block of the IP, the apparent quasi fresh start with name change, the socking evidence, and the continuation of a months old edit war, I'm requesting a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a mistake

I keep getting reported for my disruptive editing on Bob's Burgers again. First off, there was a mistake with the later seasons I was trying to correct and then somebody try to complain and didn't listen nor see my summary. I feel I am being disrespected and hurt by this. Sseasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 were released as manufacture on demand titles but there are a few people who still believe they are the real DVD covers. Well they better think again before the even think about uploading something. Look at a season of a cartoon show on wiki. They put out a DVD cover of a certain season if there's a physical release confirmed by its studio followed by press release. If not, then either a promotional poster, digital cover art or none are inserted. Here's my proof.

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-2/18417 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-3/19677 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-4/20940 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Bobs-Burgers-Season-5/22470

Leviathan648 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved from own Ani section to here for continuity. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The socking issue at Bob's Burgers (season 4) and other pages was previously discussed at the talk page of User:S hannon434. The indef block was appealed, but two different admins declined to lift it. So I'm going ahead now with an indef block of User:Leviathan648. This user has never posted to the talk page of any of the Bob's Burgers articles to get consensus for their preferred color scheme. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Charlo Greene

Hey, I know that this isn't BLP/N, however that page is fairly dead (I'd brought it up there already) and this is a relatively urgent BLP issue. Long story short, some newer editors (Frjhnson, AlaskanCannabis) have started editing the Charlo Greene and has been intent on adding two things to the article: (this is more about AlaskanCannabis than the other person, honestly)

The first is that they kept adding information about an AMA Greene held on Reddit, where one of the participants posted a bunch of research where they claimed she was a scam artist. This was first added by Frjhnson and was his only edit to the page. ([192]) The claim was "She has since been outed as a scam artist following a Reddit AMA." The problem with this is that it was sourced to the Reddit thread and ultimately the participant's work would be seen as original research on here. If there was a ton of coverage of this failed AMA and the claims, then that would be one thing but even then we couldn't outright call her a scam artist without a lot of independent, very reliable sources to back this up because it'd pose a huge legal issue.

This is when AlaskanCannabis signed up and came to the page and added the information back and expanded it to also include information about Greene doxing someone on her Facebook page with the intent to encourage harassment. Again, this was only sourced to the Reddit thread. I removed this again and posted to the talk page explaining the reasons why this shouldn't be on the article. (IE, BLP and legal issues, NOTTABLOID, etc) They returned to the page to repost the same information and add her social media as a form of sourcing. ([193])

Another editor came in and removed some of this information and AlaskanCannabis tried to add some of it back in. I just now went back and removed some content with this edit, specifically the statement:

"After being evicted, Charlo continued to fight with her former neighbor, going as far as to get a temporary restraining order issued against her for "stalking and threatening sexual assault". She also got a temporary restraining order against her former landlord at the Kodiak Bar the same day. A judge later denied her petition for both short and long-term orders."

I just don't see where the coverage is heavy enough to include every single legal run in she's had since her infamous TV stunt, as the above statement was only sourced to this local news story. We don't do it for other people and I don't see where it should change for Greene. A search for "Charlo Greene restraining order" (without quantifiers) brings back almost solely tabloid type coverage and even that's sparse. What isn't a tabloid is more of a one paragraph or a few sentences type of deal that mostly just says that TMZ wrote something about this. I just don't see where this particular incident is major enough to include here. It may become more relevant when she goes to court and faces jail time as stuff like this can and does come up in these sort of cases, but we can't predict that in the here and now.

To be honest, I feel like AlaskanCannabis is more here on a SPA WP:SOAPBOX mission than anything else. It's not that I doubt that anything claimed by the Reddit person is false, just that the coverage isn't there to justify any of this and it's all stuff that falls within BLP territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The second editor appears to be UAA violation, being named after an organisation, and they smell like dirty socks to me. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh, IMO that name is too generic, and doesn't match the org name "Alaska Cannabis Club" anyways (if it's what I think you're suggesting). No opinion on the sock thing. ansh666 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd wondered slightly if it was a sockpuppet but it doesn't entirely feel like that to me. I think that it's more likely that it's more a case of a few people who likely know each other and frequent the same place(s) trying to raise awareness (albeit negative awareness) of Greene. (IE, probably meatpuppetry.) As far as username issues go, I don't think that they're representing an organization, it's probably a username they chose on a theme since they're dealing with a person who is involved with pot. It's kind of like where someone may write about an animal related non-profit and choose the username "AnimalLover" or "PET your Animals" (IE, styling their username after PETA even if they're here to write negatively about them). It's something that would raise some eyebrows but wouldn't be a username violation per se - it'd just mark them as someone to watch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocking abusive editor

User Ayush259 is trying some kind of smear campaign against me. He called me names on my talk page which I ignored. However his subsequent edits have also been to abuse me on his talk page and his user page. He claims to be related to a don (), and even added stupid information on the don's page. All this just because I reverted one vandalism edit by him.Jupitus Smart 16:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a kid, though I'm not completely sure. Though I would just block for WP:NOTHERE. — JJBers 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, just got blocked. — JJBers 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. He doesn't seem like a kid, considering he stays in a paying guest accomodation per his own admission in the edit I reverted. Jupitus Smart 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(internal) copyright violations?

I have my eyes on a couple of new accounts (with a slight hint of sock/meatpuppetry), who seem to do the following: create an article in draft space, do some development until a quite mature article has been formed, and then copy the content to mainspace (removing the draft templates, maybe some minor changes (spelling, grammar, but nothing big)), not waiting for review or even requesting that. The edit summaries on the mainspace creation are not indicative that the article is created elsewhere. My question is, is this a copyright violation? not disclosing edits or examples --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. All texts on Wikipedia, including Drafts, are licensed under CC. Yintan  09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant the 'all rights reserved ©' kind of copyright. My bad. Yintan  09:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was a single editor in draft space who wrote/worked on the article and who copied it to main - no (WP:NOATT). If multiple editors have worked on the draft and a single editor copies it (rather than move) - it fails our rules on attribution unless there is a notice somewhere saying where it was copied from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, referring the OP to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Beetstra: Yes, it's a copyright violation, as it's unlicensed without attribution (unless all substantial contributions are by a single editor, who may then be the sole copyright holder, and they copy it themselves). By "substantial contributions", I'm referring to something which crosses the threshold to generate a copyright interest, e.g. if an editor contributes near enough all of the original text and 100 other editors fix typos, formatting, and generally trivial edits; only the first editor holds a copyright interest in it. It's different to most copyright violations, as retrospective addition of attribution (e.g. histmerge, null edit summary, talk page banner, etc) can be used to resolve the violation. It could also be symptomatic of something else, like a paid editing group, or other issue worthy of a SPI case, if there are multiple instances involving the same accounts. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Murph9000 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, so for the three accounts I am looking at, the case is as described for substantial edits by others, for which there are none. For the rest just remains a slight hint of sockpuppetry and a slight shift in modus operandi from a previous sock (all working on similar article classes). I guess I'll have to monitor this a bit longer as the suspicion does not rise above my threshold to start an SPI, and I don't want to spoil it either per WP:BEANS. Thanks for the answers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Extremist racist edits from User:104.237.147.221

Situation dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

---

This IP user made 4 edits today. I think the user should be blocked, and I think the revisions should be deleted too, as they are "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• El C has blocked the IP, and I have revdel'd the edits. Thanks for the heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Another Jack McCauley related legal threat

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

---

See you in court [194]. Time for some serious protection to stop this joker? duffbeerforme (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see protection is already done. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

INVALID TEMPLATE

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

---

The new Off-Broadway (lortel.org) template is broken. Example:<ref>{{iobdb|Ruth|Maleczech}}</ref>

Advisory note Please use a more specific IOBDb template. See the documentation for available templates does not help. Quis separabit? 14:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And this is an "incident requiring the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" because why? Take this to Template talk:Iobdb title and/or ping those working in it. EEng 14:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible tampering with article history

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

---

The article is History of Tallahassee, Florida.

In the article history, under 7 June 2015 ([[195]]), it states that User:SeminoleNation is author of a 14,411 character section on the black history of Tallahassee. That section in its entirety was written and posted by me without the help of anyone (as of that date). I did not give it to SeminoleNation to post. I do not understand why I am not credited correctly. This is a type of theft, as I see it.

I have brought this to SeminoleNation's attention, he does not claim it is his writing, but he has not replied to my request for an explanation. See [[196]].

If you look at User talk:SeminoleNation, you might want to look at the 60,000 characters he has recently removed from it: [[197]].

What I most want to know is how this happened. We have had some mildly hostile interactions before, mostly concerning Florida State University, where I was Distinguished Research Professor, but nothing like this. See User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 1#Florida State Seminoles and User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 1#FSU.

I'm sorry but I could not figure out how to use the link templates. I have left the required notice on his talk page

Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Did you have a draft of that section in your user space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure of the complaint here. The software records the history of whoever put that section in. In this case, it is saying that he inserted that 14K section of text. Are you saying he copied it from your sandbox and added it? Are you saying you made it and the software screwed up and said he did? Not sure there is much we can do with the latter, but we need to understand the actual claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• It seems to be a direct copy and paste of Deisenbe's sandbox, with some minor formatting changes. Compare: The diff that it was added and her sandbox on June 7, 2015. They don't look very different. — JJBers 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I was just going to say that. Is there any way page histories can be tampered with? deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No. They just copied your text without giving attribution, which is a copyright violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• If it was copied from your sandbox, and they did not author the text, then it should have been attributed in the edit summary at the time. However there are ways to add the attribution: See WP:CWW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I really think I posted it myself. I would have noticed it being deleted from my sandbox. Look at the article history and, if it's relevant, you'll see how many edits I have made, compared with only 2 of his, both on 7 June 2015. deisenbe (talk)

Your sandbox merely had to be copied, not deleted. There's nothing in the logs to indicate anything unusual - such things can be engineered by admins but it would always leave a trace. The only possible scenario, besides the obvious one discussed above, is that there was a software glitch mis-assigning authorship of the edit. I find that very unlikely but if that is the case then there is nothing that can be done with it now, apart from adding attribution according to WP:CWW. I think you can rule out "tampering". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • I would appreciate it if someone could take care of CWW, since I've never dealt with it before and it's not obvious to me what to do. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously crying about an edit from two years ago deisenbe? I have better things to do than try and "steal" your so called "contributions" on wikipedia. Only you make a big deal about an edit that will literally have no effect on your life whatsoever. Grow up and stop accusing people of things of theft you child. YOU posted all of that info on the main Tallahassee page and ruined the whole page with your edit. I moved all that information to the correct article where it should have been posted to in the first place which is the "History of Tallahassee" page. You were vandalizing that main page for a while with your agenda. Don't come here trying to act like a victim now.--SeminoleNation (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This response could have been move civil but it looks like SeminoleNation moved text from one article to another. [198]. SeminoleNation please see WP:CWW on how to attribute properly when doing this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I will not stand for anyone going around and accusing me of tampering edits and being a thief! That is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. I have no tolerance for it. Yes that's exactly what I did. I was completely new to wikipedia in 2015 and I didn't know there was a certain way to go about that back then. This guy was vandalizing and pushing his own personal agenda so hard on various articles that I started watching two years ago. It seems like he hasn't changed his "I'm a victim" mentality one bit.--SeminoleNation (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added the "copied" template to the talk pages of both articles, which clears up the copyright problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one amused that SeminoleNation basically said "How DARE you accuse me of theft! I did it, but how DARE you call me out on it?!" --Tarage (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you dumb Tarage? I literally just explained what happened. I never stole anybody's work. I moved his edit to the proper article. Stay in your lane.--SeminoleNation (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation, if you would have responded when I asked for an explanation we could have saved everybody all this trouble. deisenbe (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation and the way you did it is a copyright policy violation, and a breach of protocol around here, moving something that someone is working on and not being informed enough to attribute it properly. So you really aren't in a position to be a smart ass. Asking someone if they are dumb is also breaching our policy on civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation: Not to pile on, but I want to comment as an editor who extensively deals with copyright matters on enwiki, Commons, and via OTRS. Every time you hit submit on Wikipedia, you agree to release your contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Both licenses require attribution to the original author, and part of the agreement you make when you click the Save button is that such attribution is made via link to your userpage or via your username. It's not just a breach of policy but it's prohibited by copyright law to copy text from Wikipedia without attributing it to the original authors. Please be more careful in the future, and adjust the tone of your response. It is not anyone's business to attack another editor for insisting on their rights under the licenses they agreed to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

PerfectlyIrrational

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

---

A block is needed to stop PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from repeatedly adding poorly-sourced and unsourced content to high-visibility articles, including unsourced WP:BLP content. They have also edit warred and made other reckless edits. Numerous warnings and attempts to communicate[199] have not been effective.

Most recent example here: June 5, 2017

Warnings

• April 27, 2017
• April 27, 2017
• May 4, 2017
• May 5, 2017
• May 12, 2017
• May 12, 2017
• May 17, 2017
• May 20, 2017
• May 25, 2017
• May 26, 2017
• June 1, 2017
• June 1, 2017
• June 2, 2017 & [200]
• June 4, 2017

Thank you.- MrX 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...I think enough attempts have been made to communicate and this person is not getting it. It's consistent across multiple articles and despite warnings and advice from numerous users. I'm seeing a previous 24 hour block so I'm escalating to two weeks. No objection if any other admin wants to reduce or extend that time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. I remember now. endorse blockDlohcierekim (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Previous noticeboard threads concerning PerfectlyIrrational: [201], [202], [203]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support block Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock to stop Illinois IPs

Can we get a rangeblock for the vandal who has been messing with hip hop and R&B music articles for more than a year? This person replaces song titles and artist names with wrong titles and names.[204] He also changes dates and lyrics. The disruption is considerable.

Since July 2016, the IPs geolocate to an area of Illinois which includes Park Forest and Chicago Heights. The base IP is 50.201.7.46 who has been at it since October 2016, but this person often shifts to IP6 addresses. He was blocked by Widr for one week. The disruption started out with Chicago IPs, and goes farther back than I'm showing.

Long list of IPs.

Here's a list of involved IPs: June 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:1D56:B24A:E869:800 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:E9D0:89BD:2EEE:14E4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:88C7:F14D:3620:1854 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 28, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:98D0:3587:B409:AE9D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 7, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:E10C:9ED1:8BA1:BC11 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 4, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D402:D21B:C2F0:A5F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:FD63:FFDD:9615:F3B1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 2, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D1EB:D085:277C:3FA6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:7905:72C1:C675:4A05 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C2E:7BC6:1ED8:764C (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 29, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D55F:32BA:5B90:435F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 27, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:A477:6A8E:27E3:2509 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 21, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C826:6898:F222:246B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 20, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:D98C:346D:6547:6A2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:C11E:87C:197:BE2F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:84D1:FA7B:819F:9EDA (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:F45F:EF5E:DDD6:C69E (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:AC60:995B:26D2:49A5:6FCD (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 26, 2017 2601:244:4900:2560:C91D:B6F8:A710:C42D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 22, 2017 2601:244:4900:2560:D17F:536E:DF41:2112 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B5C5:32AA:D66A:2042 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 10, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:256F:86D8:78AE:E697 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 7, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2018:2819:7A1:AB4F (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 6, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2511:A951:3A2:D891 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 5, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:752A:B5FC:147B:A8B2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:7DC0:2C93:AC0D:3882 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 14, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:75E3:948F:49D7:D767 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 5, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B980:727E:4A1C:814A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B820:6FD1:5A5A:D2B1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:5004:D382:3574:6BDB (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 3, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:B00A:ACE8:BA60:E76 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 22, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:91EE:2A01:7637:47B4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 20, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2C31:BD4E:1D08:68AE (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:2126:A80C:C896:6125 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 19, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:38EF:E5BD:82E6:B630 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 18, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:C926:159D:AECA:594A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 17, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:19D2:85FE:61FA:ACC3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 16, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:3D7A:E54A:19F7:B0D7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) January 16, 2017 2601:244:4900:12B0:7855:FEB3:EEE1:B09A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) November 6, 2016 2601:244:4900:12B0:5C2F:1D2B:7DE2:602 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 6, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:5514:A6A4:66A6:4AA9 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 1, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:78FB:71D7:BFA7:B929 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 16, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:B8BB:36D4:D21:358A (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 10, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:7C4A:CD29:FC29:D3F3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 6, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:1870:5CF2:1367:CEA0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 3, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:45E4:E174:D386:E5C (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) August 2, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6467:E1FD:31FD:CAF6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 27, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:1178:E73C:8866:9400 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 12, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:894F:4432:6E84:6990 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 12, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:9C23:D23D:122B:354B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 10, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:3CF1:F0FA:BD3F:F5DD (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 9, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:11B5:1AE1:C76B:862D (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 9, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6093:A84:FDED:C719 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 8, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:9872:3D25:13AC:4DA0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 8, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:E904:996C:92C1:D1CB (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:6DFC:A274:2D94:F0B4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:5CF6:9E60:76F7:5040 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 7, 2016 2601:244:4901:4C0:10F5:A735:3C09:13B (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) June 20, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:5839:85DB:30E1:2694 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) June 20, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:3009:382C:99B:AA39 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 21, 2016 2601:241:8304:AAC0:CC8:2105:2F9E:8B65 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) April 1, 2016 2601:241:8381:2850:D011:F442:820A:EB44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) March 8, 2016 2601:241:8304:BCD0:FCC1:D4B:64A0:B214 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) February 13, 2016 2601:241:8381:2850:DC3B:8F3:8797:5809 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) November 22, 2015 2601:241:8302:41EA:2802:873F:E20E:E080 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) September 23, 2015 2601:241:8302:41EA:2D84:ECC0:AA5A:F527 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I think we can get good rangeblock on this person, with very little collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I did a collateral check and it seems doable, so I've blocked 2601:244:4900:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which covers all the IPs you listed back to November 2016. The rest of them are a bit stale by now, so I haven't placed any blocks covering them. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. That will go a long way toward slowing this person down. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

These all (or all that I clicked on) belong to Comcast. Comcast assigns IPv6 addresses in /64 chunks, so anything that's not part of the current /64 is probably never going to be used by this vandal again. I have blocked 2601:244:4900:AC60:0:0:0:0/64, and any future vandalism can easily handled with a block of the applicable /64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Seeking help!

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

---

User: JJBers recent behavior has led him to an 0RR based on persistent edit warring. Since then the article Norwalk, Connecticut has been protected as a means of ending, or subduing an editing war involving said article. Nonetheless, user JJBers has resumed edit warring on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut as well as on my user talk page User talk:StephenTS42 with threats of blocking this user. Additionally, User JJBers has attempted unsuccessfully to have my sandbox deleted MfD nomination of User:StephenTS42/sandbox . I believe this all qualifies as harassment although I am making no such accusation. I would much rather seek, and follow, the judgement of administration in this matter. Thank you! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've not edit warred at all, and I've not violated 0RR at all. The MfD nomination was well over a week ago and unrealted. This is harassment because I warned you for misusing a article talk page. Please retract your statements or you run a very high risk of being blocked. —JJBers 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Also requesting boomerang block per WP:ASPERSIONS. —JJBers 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• JJBers, I am a little concerned. You sent the sandbox to MFD when it is CLEARLY a valid use of a sandbox. It is in fact the intended use of it. I also notice his talk page is mainly peppered with your warnings, so you seem to be a bit too preoccupied. StephenTS42, edit warring over the archive bot (where you were wrong) wasn't the best show of judgement either. You both are edit warring way too much and begging to be blocked here. I'm looking at your many reverts on the article, which is what made it get Full Protection, JJBers, so to say you weren't edit warring is demonstrably false. If anyone appears to be harassing it is you, so I wouldn't get on a "boomerang" soapbox here if I were you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I'll admit, I was edit warring before, and that's why I got 0RR, but this is claiming I have since, which is untrue. —JJBers 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  The article is Full Protected, so claiming you are no longer edit warring rings hollow. ANI is not a good place to throw around claims and boomerangs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  The OP says the talk pages. Anyways the article was protected for another unrelated edit war that I never participated in. —JJBers 15:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Unless he told you that, you do not know that. Admin look at more than the last 10 edits when setting protection, they look at patterns. The fact that he didn't just block the other two in their own little edit war may mean he full protected (which is somewhat rare) due to ALL the edit warring. That is pretty standard. Regardless, your behavior is not something to be proud of. StephenTS42 has his own set of problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  "Nonetheless, user JJBers has resumed edit warring on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut"
  It says it right in the comment. — JJBers 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let me ask you this StephenTS42, why did you replace a 2nd party reliable source (book) with a 3rd party encyclopedia here? Normally, that is stepping down in quality of references. I am seeing you making a lot of odd edits, and flat out mistakes, that raise the issue of your editing being disruptive on that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Can we just pass out IBANS, TBANS, or both and get it over with? The edit warring on STS's talk page by JJB was completely out of line. It's a wonder the ANEW report only cut one way (IMO, edits like this are basically revert baiting). The MFD nomination was either made in bad faith or was a stunning error in judgement. Conflicts surrounding this article in particular have been going on for months, and have gone from the top to the bottom of WP:DR and back again. We've had one user blocked three times, another get a 0RR, and now that the article is fully protected, there's apparently nothing better to do than war over archive bot settings, with edit summaries that are at best puzzling, appeals that are equally so, and closed by an obviously involved editor to boot, and probably the single most pitiable attempt at WP:OWNership I've seen so far, and apparently that out of all things is what warrants an ANI report. Jesus Christ. Enough. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I've been thinking about a IBAN with Stephen for months, but I wasn't sure if I should carry it out. But I guess I should...I'm requesting a one-way IBAN with StephenTS42. — JJBers 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Beware the boomerang. @StephenTS42: Enough of this. Till/unless some other admin closes this or over rules me, or comes to a different resolution, I will block either or both of you if you edit Norwalk or related pages in the next six months.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC) struck over eager unilateral actionDlohcierekim (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Editors JJBers and StephenTS42 are hereby topic banned from the article and talk page of Norwalk, Connecticut or from any edits that mention Norwalk, Connecticut, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. Additionally, the two editors are subject to a two way interaction ban for a period of 6 months. Any breach of these restrictions will likely result in an immediate block with an extension of this restriction as a condition of unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would support if it was 3 months instead of 6. Quick question, does this apply to any article mentioning Norwalk, or just Norwalk related articles. — JJBers 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support - And to be clear, yes, broadly construed means History of Norwalk, Connecticut. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I know that...I meant any articles that just simply mention Norwalk, because I regularly edit articles like Connecticut and so on. — JJBers 16:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  A TBAN normally covers both full articles related to the subject, as well as portions of unrelated articles which themselves also do. So someone might make the case that the main article on the state is broad enough not to be about the town, but seeing how it's mentioned about a dozen times, its going to be hard to make the case that you pass both criteria. When in doubt (i.e., when it's likely someone could make the case that you are tip-toeing around violating the ban), it's usually better to err on the side of caution. But you're quite lucky this didn't turn into your first ever block at some point, and I think everyone will probably be happier for the next six months anyway, even if it is an inconvenience. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, I'll try to avoid the sections mentioning Norwalk a lot. — JJBers 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  That's... not exactly what I was getting at. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oh...not edit the article at all? — JJBers 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  I mean, there are 2,500 stubs in WikiProject Connecticut, most of which I'm sure are not at all connected to this particular town. Folks don't normally take kindly to people trying to Wikilawyer community sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  It would not stop you from editing Orange, Connecticut, unless you were trying to edit a mention of Norwalk in that edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as means to curtail disruption, and as a relatively non-intrusive way to keep two editors apart who "have history". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support From what I got in the definitions, I'll support it. — JJBers 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, yes, this bizarre disruption has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support this whole matter has become excessively fraught. The restrictions are not at all unreasonable. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. I suggest carving a new niche among themDlohcierekim (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Half StephenTS42 needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Dissaprove This is a witch-hunt! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong OpposeNeutral: although the two users' conduct has not always been admirable, they are the only ones actually benefiting the Norwalk article, the only ones actively editing it, and have done a lot of good. A six-month ban would only be detrimental to the encyclopedia. I might support a few weeks' ban, to cool off tempers and any potential ownership ideas? Disclosure - I have been involved in a few past issues with JJBers and Stephen, as a somewhat active editor of the Norwalk article. As a heavy content editor I really want to see the lackluster Norwalk article improved, and it won't happen with its two lead editors banned from it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  As I understand you, you are saying that these two editors should not be banned from the topic because they are the only editors who can save the topic. Some of us will recognize similar statements made in the 1970s. However, in my opinion, if these two editors are the only two editors who can edit this topic effectively, then it is important that we avoid either or both of these editors being indefinitely blocked. In order to avoid either or both of these editors being indefinitely blocked, we need to topic ban them. For now. (Incidentally, I see several other editors making constructive edits to the article also, therefore one of your premises is broken too.) MPS1992 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the first point is your opinion, which is fine. The second, about other editors, I don't hold true. Sure other editors will make minor changes, and especially as these issues have erupted it's given the article a bit more attention, but the only editors who have been doing the major edits and being involved in all the major discussions are Stephen, JJBers and me. The other two can attest to that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading what others wrote, reminding me of some of the craziness that has been going on here, my feelings for supporting and opposing this are significantly conflicting; changing vote to neutral. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The way to shut edit warring down is by sending both warriors off the battlefield. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support Crossing out previous vote, even though the 6 month IBAN is fine, the 6 month TBAN is a tad unnecessary. —JJBers 00:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Did not know the proposed bannies got a !vote. I think is important for both to gain new perspective via 6 month TBAN.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Most, if not all of the disruptive matter came from our interactions, not the article itself. Putting a TBAN is pointless, as no disruptive action has come up between us and other editors. 6 months is also way too long, at least in my opinion. —JJBers 00:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support TBan, Oppose IBan These editors have never really interacted anywhere aside from this article so I see the IBan as pointless. I'm weak on the TBan simply because StephenTS42's response since the start of this has shown a pretty stark lack of competence. I was on the verge of suggesting an indefinite TBan for StephenTS42 just based on their needless personalization against Dennis on his TP which just compounded the competence issues. Capeo (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As there seemed to be a consensus for a 6 month TBAN and as the disruption has continued, I have TBAN'd both StephenTS42 and JJBers, pending the community's approval. Feel free to reverse me if I have been unduly harsh/lenient.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC) struck over enthusiastic unilateral action.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - a TBAN appears to be the only solution. Neither editor is back peddling from the cycle of repeated reversion, despite one of them promising to. However, when StephenTS42 broke his promise, JJBers jumped right in and reverted. 6 months of editing other articles will give needed perspective, and the only other option I see is lengthy blocks. It's the article, not the interaction. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and IBAN - Despite numerous warnings, instructions from multiple editors and this AN/I thread, JJBers continues to skirt the 3RR line and needlessly revert at Norwalk, Connecticut. In the past 24 hours they have reverted three different edits. While the latter two reverts are both supportable and reasonable, they still show a lack of sound judgement. JJBers should not be touching the revert button at all, even to revert obvious vandalism at this moment. The other user, StephenTS42, is also struggling to display sound judgement. This edit was first reverted by user M for the following reasons; You removed valid info; you contradict the source and your own writing. How can there be 35,415 housing units but only 33,217 households?. Despite this, Stephen reinstated the edit with little change under the guise of "typo's". This new edit was reverted by JJBers as "... disruptive, and borderline vandalism". I disagree with the call of vandalism, but, obviously the revert was both appropriate and reasonable. Not to mention that the edit summary is misleading. The last revert was to remove a category added by StephenTS42 into the middle of the article. I have never seen categories dumped into the middle of an article like this. I would have removed it myself if I had noticed. We don't normally throw people behind the scenes in article space. I would consider category space to be a form of maintenance space for editors, not readers.
  In terms of this whole series of events I want to quickly explain why I support a TBAN and IBAN.
  TBAN; I've been scanning through the past 500 edits made to the article Norwalk, Connecticut. While there are some edits that draw concern, like this one made at 19:24, 20 February 2017 where Stephen tells M to go jump in a lake for ... removing the "px" parameter from all but one image per the image use policy; Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. Emphasis is not mine. Most of both editors contributions to the topic have been positive. Unfortunately, things have take a turn for the worse in the last few months and now the edits being made are disruptive from both sides. Because of this, I agree that an escalated response is necessary. JJBers holds a quite strong OWNERSHIP of Connecticut articles, hopefully a Norwalk TBAN will suffice.
  This leads me into IBAN; Though the most recent edits are plain disruptive on both sides and a TBAN on from Norwalk would be adviseable. It's interpersonal skills, which both are struggling with, and more obviously the inability to discuss when conflict arises. In fact I have a much greater issue with JJBers edit summaries than I do even StephenTS42. JJBers repeatedly threatens blocks against StephenTS42, in the course of normal editing, on their talk page and even here at AN/I. If a TBAN needs to be implemented its really from the words; "block and ban" (includes XBAN). For example; this, this, this and even here and here. These are idle threats. They make editing uncomfortable and put other editors on edge. In this situation, I see no viable improvement except an outright IBAN between the two editors.
  Other issues; I took a look at the discussion page, Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut, only to be disappointed at the level of discussion there. There is a significant amount of back and forth, however, it's of no quality when happening between JJBers and StephenTS42 alone. Supposedly an IBAN with rectify this. Recently, JJBers has taken a pointed authoritarian attitude, while StephenTS42 has tried repeatedly to back down without actually backing down. I can't tell whether this is a ploy of some kind or repentence. I'd like to highlight the discussion on Population density. JJBers refused to hold any discussion over it insisting that they are right and that further discussion on it should lead to a block. Even when M points out that every reliable source calculates population density on land only, JJBers continued to insist that the way currently done must stay in the article and that only a formal consensus through RfC is valid for making a change to the article. Of course, this is plain and unproductive stonewalling. If you take a close look at discussion throughout the article's talk you'll see time and time again that JJBers takes an authoritative attitude and repeatedly threatens blocks. In fact, they do it five separate times. JJBers, you are not the arbiter of Wiki policy and you do not hand out blocks at your discretion. Even administrators do this only where such arbitration will not result in community backlash and only when necessary. That said, I think this issue may have arisen from Stephen's atitude to discussion recorded in archive 2 of the article talk page. In archive 2 you can readily identify the following issues that StephenTS42 has; 1. Lack of good faith, 2. makes spurious accusations, 3. complete incivility and 4. a complete lack of competence. I do not, however, think this is the case for the discussions, or attempted discussions, currently on the article's talk. There is something of a competency issue still, but, it's much more minor. In essence, JJBers needs to back down and reduce their tone from commanding to collaborating. I can understand the occassionally raised tone of exasperation or annoyance, but, right now JJBers is doing it quite consistently. Examples of issues for both editors; Threatens block for attempting discussion and requesting non-personal comments, Stephen intentionally being obtuse, JJBers acting as sole arbiter of policy and being aggressive (MPS1992 intervented on this thread), JJBers demands that discussion cease on population density and then later threatens a block for FORUMSHOPPING and then clarifies, erroneously, that repeating the same question on the same page is FORUMSHOPPING. I'm going to stop here because I am sick of pulling up diffs. I focused on what is currently on the article talk, if you go into the archives you could easily find at least twenty noteworthy diffs of StephenTS42 being generally non-collaborative and uncivil. Whereas JJBers, Ceoil and M put concerted effort in dealing with Stephen. I think JJBers just left the dial turned up and needs to turn it back down.
  I can't think of anything else, and this is already a very lengthy post, so I'll just leave it here. Just one side note; I have the temptation to propose indefinite BRD compliance (1RR), but, that's only a useful solution if the issues aren't localized to Norwalk and the two editors interactions. I'm not convinced that it is so local, but again, I haven't figured out where the lion's share of the issue is coming from. I'll have to have a think on that. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll admit, I've been on the edge for the last week. I'll accept the TBAN and IBAN right now if you want. I just believe that I've been slowly, and slowly put on edge, with the pure WP:CIR issues, and the threats. I did try for quite a while to be WP:AGF, but after 3 months, I started growing tired of it. It's the end of the school year, and I might take a small Wikibreak, and try to focus on articles outside of Norwalk. I did, and still do wish for a shorter TBAN, but there's no use in fighting it anymore. I think most of the reason of this pure anger this past few days have probably been from this WP:ANI, and I do thank you for diving a bit deeper into the edit history. Sigh... —JJB^ers 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can understand the being on edge after several months. I read archive 2 after the main talk page and about then is when things started to become clearer to me. Your dial slowly wound up throughout those earlier discussions, so you didn't start off the bat with the aggression it came as your živci su popuštali (nerves were giving up? I think is the translation). I don't think a Norwalk TBAN is too disruptive, unless Norwalk holds any special significance to you personally, because, it's a small town (six biggest, but, still small) within a small state. You'll still be able to keep working on practically every other Connecticut article, which is where most of your editing is. I'm trying to think of this in terms that apply to me. I edit mostly Roman history articles. If I was TBANned from Roman History that would hit quite hard on me, but, not completely prevent me from enjoying the encyclopaedia. By contrast, being TBANned from, say, Caracalla - an article I contributed a lot too - would be less devastating even though I'd be very disappointed. I'm thinking of your Norwalk being like my Caracalla. I think the IBAN is more important than the TBAN here, but, because you're both very active at Norwalk, CT it's going to be impossible to impose the IBAN and still expect that you'll be able to carry on working at Norwalk without violating the IBAN. Whatever the duration of the IBAN, so too must be the duration of the TBAN. Six months is both long and not that long; it is only about 180 days. I've been editing for something around 900 days now. So I've been editing about 4.5 times as long as the duration of the TBAN. It'll get easier after the first few days and weeks. AN/I is a stressful process to be dragged through and it's much different to volunteer to help out with other people's concerns than it is having everyone focus in on you. Consider this as a sort of HR department, you're being reprimanded for failing to uphold company standards, and your pay is being docked, but, you've still got the job. Clearly the company thinks you're still worth the effort. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Protest I made a comment in my defense and as an answer to Dennis Brown above. It was deleted without explanation. I needn't go on by trying to blame or point my finger at anyone at this point as it appears I have been railroaded, tried, convicted and sentenced. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves. StephenTS42 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I already told you on my talk page that I reverted you because you erased this entire section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add it in without removing the whole section next time. —JJBers 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be commenting so much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the blame and finger-pointing should be aimed directly at yourself, StephenTS42. Your edit – I hope inadvertently – deleted comments from at least five other editors, and was reverted for that reason. The problem is pretty conspicuous if you look at the diff of the revert (or of your original edit). And even without looking at the diffs, the problem was explained to you on Dennis' talk pages by two different editors [205][206] (including Dennis) within minutes of your objection; you've had plenty of time to fix the problem and re-add your comment without deleting anyone else's posts.
Instead, you've gone from shooting yourself in the foot to blowing your whole leg off, by blaming your own failure to detect or repair your own edit conflict – even after the problem was explicitly explained to you – on a conspiracy to railroad you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Forgive me if you think I blanked anything. I have reviewed the history and found no evidence to support your claim. I do make mistakes and I apologize for being human. I have no qualm with you, but you did not tell me I had blanked any section: JJBers made that claim. Nonetheless, whether I did or did not do what you said was no grounds for deleting my comment. As it stand now it appears you, or whoever, has attracted (incited?) an editor/administrator rush which my comment in my defense very well would have fended off. I believe that constitutes a slant and an injustice for whatever reasons you have against my contributions. Furthermore, I find it strange how you made such an abrupt or hasty turnaround from you initial stance in this matter. Once again, if I made a mistake, I apologize. Now, would you please do the right thing? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is beginning to push the limits of WP:AGF. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this will become a WP:CIR issue if this doesn't stop. —JJBers 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)You gotta admit that blanking something in the act of supposedly apologizing for blanking has a certain dadaist zen to it. Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stephen TS42, This is the edit where you blanked an entire section. JJBers, it's already been suggested to you that you curb the commenting. You should follow that advice. It does not look good that you're throwing jabs in like this. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Stephen, you really are making me question your competence to edit here. [207] is the diff. Look at the left "before" column and the right "after" column. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And as pointed out, I see you did the exact same thing again, deleting TenOfAllTrades post.[208] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Might I gently suggest that some of the "history" between these two be re-looked at, with the above in mind? This is heading toward a two-part solution to a one-part problem, IMO. Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, JJBers is not innocent. I don't question his competence, just his willingness to back away when common sense says you should. There are still two problems here, even if different and of different magnitudes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, and there isn't much percentage in splitting hairs whether a problem is 50-50, or 55-45. But when it looks like 80-20, that is a norse of a different calor. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

But JJBer still edit wars, their behavior is bordering on harassment, and doesn't know the first rule of holes. I get what you are saying, but I'm not nearly as interested in fairness (we aren't judges) as much as I about a solution that works. My first concern is all the good editors they are getting in the way of with this behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This whole "protest" strains my credulity. Gently suggest that StephenTS42 drop the stick, back away, and maybe get some rest. If that means politely agreeing to disagree, great. Disengagement at this point would be for the best.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize

OK! It appears that my edit submissions here occurred while some one else was editing. That is to say during an editing conflict. At this point I can't explain the missing comments. I thought I was doing the right thing when in fact I fudged it. I apologize and regret my error. I did not do that on purpose. I promise to re-read the instructions and learn from my mistake. It won't happen again. Now would you all put down your torches or pitchforks, remove the noose and disperse the lynch mob. I apologize, I apologize, I apologize! Please accept my apology! I may not be new here, but I do get distracted at times. If anyone believes I was 'throwing jabs' at them then please allow me to take them back. My people skills must be a little rusty, but with some patient social oiling I can become a valuable ally here. So, can we all stop slinging mud get back to the business at hand? Can we all try to be nice to each other? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You... you're editing the entirety of ANI with every comment aren't you? TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflicts can cause that, even when someone starts out editing just a section. Might really be a systemic problem. Anmccaff (talk)

Wikipedia is not therapy... --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can forgive the mistakes on this page. The proposal to topic/interaction ban you was before those mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems Stephen did something similar on the Norwalk talk page.[209] I think the added material is now in the archive and on the talk page. TVGarfield (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Archiving was changed and info is in both places. The simple thing to do is someone who can should revert it and fix it before and bunch of talk page needs to be reverted to fix it. TVGarfield (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@TVGarfield: Fixed. —JJBers 00:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Request

I'm requesting that my TBAN from Norwalk can be at least shortened to 2-3 months, as outside of a small edit war (which really is just me removing a misused template) with the other user involved in this discussion, I've not been very disruptive to the article. Secondly, I have been talked about the minor edit war anyways, and I got a 72-hour 0RR, so I see no reason for it be dragged further. I'll still upheaval the 6 month IBAN with StephenTS24 afterwards. —JJBers 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, then you should be either agreeing to the 6 months, or asking for 12 months. Being blocked from editing everywhere, is much worse than just being topic banned from one topic. So, please move on from this one topic. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I think y'all both need to find another area in which to contribute for at least six months. The subtext to your shortening request is that you are overly invested in editing Norwalk. We need to see a stepping away for a while in hopes that problems won't recur with a new perspective.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• My opinion is that this has dragged on enough, and perhaps an admin might look at closing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone monitoring Norwalk, Connecticut? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you and your friend are merrily editing, hopefully amicably.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kibbitz I feel as though this whole RfC is a kind of reverse-fishbowl experiment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah. It's looks an awful lot like the continuation of an edit war, and, for good measure we'll throw in deceptive edit summaries and accusing other editors of being vandals. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @StephenTS42: Stop removing massive chunks of the demographics section for no reason. —JJB^ers 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As of 7 minutes ago, they are still edit warring. Can a passing admin block them both until a decision is reached here? John from Idegon (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am stepping back and away. Today, I was not and will not participate in any editing war. I asked JJBers to explain his edits or deletions in the article's talk page. If that is considered edit warring... then I think its time for a change in perspective. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The last few edits on Norwalk and on WP:AN3 are showing massive WP:CIR issues with Stephen, I think if it doesn't stop soon, I think we should carry out a full block to StephenTS42. — JJBers 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

JJBers, that ignores the fact that you are still, despite this novel - length thread, reverting him repeatedly. Granted, Stephen promised to step away and 4 hours later was back to editing, but c'mon....You've made more than one trip around the block on Wikipedia. If you don't realize that you reverting his edits at this time is an incredibly bad idea, well, the CIR sword has two sides. Your hands are not clean here, and that makes your last comment at best disingenuous. Seriously, as long as this thread has been open and as many editors have participated, don't you think if his edits were seriously problematic, someone else could have dealt with it? Short of blocking both of you, the only solution is a topic ban. Obviously, Stephen is not the only one with an issue regarding this particular article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add that clerking a report at WP:ANEW where you are the subject, as you did here is another incredibly bad idea. Yea, it's malformed. It's also closed and will be archived (a little less quickly tho because you edited). WP:STICK is very relevant. John from Idegon (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see JJBers advocating that another editor be blocked. JJBers did the same thing yesterday, leaving this message about another editor stating "I would support a block for making large-scale changes without consensus, along with edit warring pretty hard". You would?

On June 6th, User:JJBers Public reverted 46 edits in a row made by User:AirportExpert. This is one example. Also on June 6th, using account User:JJBers at Middlebury, Connecticut, this editor reverted the same edit--made by two different editors--three times in nine hours, [210],[211], [212].

Several cautions about edit warring were left on JJBers talk page, which seemed of little use. On June 7th, JJBers made this edit, removing another pushpin map which had been added by User:AirportExpert.

I rarely come to this board to add my comments, but this edit war and finger pointing is very disruptive to regular editors of US city articles, and I am in agreement with User:John from Idegon that some action needs to be taken. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

May I point out that my use of the words stepping back and away was intended to apply to my participation in an editing war; not to editing in general. However, I can see how it could be taken as John from Idegon implied; I apology for any confusion and will make my future comments more direct and clear. Nonetheless, I have kept my word and not made any reversions of JJBers contributions (and for some time now) thereby not contributing to that editing war. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

While you didn't directly revert me, you still indirectly re-added the content after I reverted it, contributing to the edit war. — JJBers 14:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for one week

Page protected. Since reverting continued today (June 10), I have fully protected the page for one week. El_C 06:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Officialrajuparas can't stop using Wikipedia for promotion

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

---

User:Officialrajuparas keeps promoting himself (and a local Hindu saint called Baba Chamliyal) by randomly placing his name as well as spam links to his personal website and social media profiles, including on user talk pages. He has been asked several times to stop - see his Talk page - to no avail. A few diffs: [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]

I assume he also edits as an IP: [224] [225] (self-promo article draft)

He has already been blocked for a week for spamming [226], but this clearly did not have much effect. All the above diffs are from after the release from block.

Account also has a few useful edits, but this still does not convince me the editor is HERE to build an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 07:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: editor is now asking for my phone number. [227] — kashmiri ^TALK 07:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Page creation disruption by Bappy.iucse

• Bappy.iucse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr.Kh.A.N.M Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dr. Kh.A.N.M Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kh. A. N. M. Abdullah Jahangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been creating COPYVIO pages (material from Facebook) repeatedly and seems to have no inclination of stopping. 4 pages have been created if a talk page containing the same material is included. Pages have been deleted by RHaworth. Not sure if block is warranted, but this is getting disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

IP 116.74.236.77 having difficulty with http versus https and getting abusive

116.74.236.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been requesting edits to change https links to http on articles with citations to the Wall Street Journal and making similar edits: Special:Contributions/116.74.236.77. They are also becoming abusive in their requests and edit summaries when challenged: [228], [229]. Based on wording, they also appear to using 109.26.26.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [230], [231]. Warned by myself and @Safety Cap: on the 116 Ip address: User talk:116.74.236.77. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Guessing this might be related? That pleasant outburst merits an immediate block. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, has now moved on to 130.180.211.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's Nate Speed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Now at: 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:CED:748A:8F55 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Might have to semi talk pages as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:302A:7191:AEAE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I hard blocked the /64 as a webhost. It's probably safe to assume that pretty much every IP Nate Speed uses is either an open proxy or webhost, but this one was very easy to verify. The site itself advertises its services as a colocation provider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

How should I handle this situation?

Pivox has been on an editing spree to change the name of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) article to PKK–Turkey conflict (1978–present). This is an obvious POVPUSH since the Kurdish conflict in Turkey has a lot more to do with just the PKK. At any rate, how should this be handled? Obviously, there's no consensus for these edits and it's quite disruptive considering the POV behind it. Should all of their edits be reverted? But that would look disruptive on my end. I'd appreciate it if someone can advise me on what to do here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As of now, just do what you just did: revert the changes and ask them to get consensus before implementing them. If they do it again then it might be worthy enough to bring it here. Also, I told the editor of this ANI discussion, which is required. Maybe I was too fast, but whatever. SkyWarrior 20:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: do you know if using my Rollback feature would be okay in this case? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Rule #1 of rollback: if you don't know whether you should use rollback or not, don't use it. In any case, you have two options: use Twinkle (which is what I would prefer, since there really isn't that many edits to revert in this instance), or do use rollback, but leave a message on the user's talk page. Again, I would advise using Twinkle in this case. SkyWarrior 21:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have Twinkle. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet:: For your information, I just moved Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) back to its usual place. That had been moved to a 'PKK-Turkish' spot as well. Yintan  21:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted another one. I will also be reverting other related edits, since I do have Twinkle (which you can install in your user preferences). SkyWarrior 21:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Left a message on Pivox's Talk. Yintan  21:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And I just finished reverting what he did. Please feel free to let me know if I messed up, and clean up if I did. Thanks for letting us know about this. SkyWarrior 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• RE Rollback - See here. In short - if you are using rollback in a good faith content dispute, you risk having the right removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editorial bias on Al-Masdar Page

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

---

The page for Al-Masdar has been vandalized by well-established users that have a personal bias against Al-Masdar. It has been nearly impossible to get anything neutral written about the news site without editors deleting much of the information. Users such as IrynaHarpy and Stickee have repeatedly attempted to get the page removed in the past and now they are the ones editing, despite the fact they have been overruled by several well-established users in votes.

While a majority vote isn't always the answer to a squabble, it is imperative to note that many of the users involved in the vote have been active in the Middle East news sections.

I am hoping we can get some neutral parties to stop vandalism and make the page look professional. Salimidris (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the criticism section could really be condensed. Looks good, apart from that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. It looks odd with more content in the criticism part of the page than background.Salimidris (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Salimidris - Read the boomerang essay before coming to WP:ANI to engage in personal attacks over a content dispute. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism and that yelling "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. User:Iryna Harpy is not a vandal. (In this specific case, to be sure, Salimidris, you may have the excuse that you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism. In that case, do not claim vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bobbybobbie

The above user has adopted a highly combative style when contributing to the AfD discussion on N4 (record producers), an article he created. At least three other users (one being another administrator) have expressed opinions that the subject of the article doesn't meet GNG, and the user in question has responded by repeatedly questioning their individual bona fides, suitability to express opinions on the topic and knowledge of policies and guidelines, as well as suggesting that they may have been canvassed in one instance.
For my part, I accept that I may have been shorter with the user than is entirely a good thing, however I do have a dislike for the same arguments being hashed and re-hashed again in the hope that someone may give in. I honestly believe that Bobbiebobbie has adopted an attitude of ownership to this article, despite frequest protestations to the contrary, and is at least at risk of being here for reasons other than building an encyclopedia. I note in particular what seems like feigned surprise at the suggestion that Wikipedia's still a work in progress. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why am I the only one accused of being "combative" when the rest of you are (collectively) doing the same thing to me? That's unfair. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. We're responding to the AfD discussion, citing policy and expressing our opinions, which happen to differ from yours. We're also responding to the arguments you're (to put it mildly) bludgeoning us with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same experience I am having... Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

[The following is the last I intend to say directly on this subject] Attacking users who disagree with your opinions and quoting sections of policy out of context is different to citing policy and expressing opinions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have hatted the (putting it politely) 'extended content'; @Bobbybobbie: Please do not undo it. It would not be unhlepful- the discussion is still there for the closing admin to see, but the visible walls of text, et., may put off potential !voters. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobbybobbie You are waging a singled handed war to try and impose your opinions. I am the least experienced editor in the discussion but I am a new pages patroller with a bit of experience in deletion discussions. The others that have !voted to delete include 2 administrators with over 10 years experience each and 2 other experienced editors. You started a discussion on the WP:NMUSIC talk page but have had exactly the same reply here. Everyone has said the same thing that regarless of which criteria apply for presuming notability WP:GNG has to be met and this article fails. You refuse to listen to them and accuse everyone of not being capable of understand the different guidelines and policy. Domdeparis (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I just want consistency on Wikipedia. It's obvious that these voters are set on deleting it; however, another article I created (DJ Montay) was deleted, then approved on the same grounds. It's obviously not a clear case and improvements can be made over time.

Domdeparis, that is still an open topic (we are still contributing to it) and this is not the place to continue such a discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"but the visible walls of text, et., may put off potential !voters". Which, I think, is why others avoided that discussion like the plague, despite aspersions cast, till I broke through said wall to !vote in a manner displeasing to the user in question.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this is supposed to be a complaint against me, we are not here to hear about your strength and determination. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting out the old bludgeon? Which is very much the point.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobby you may be right when you say that the other article is in the same situation as this one. I'll have a look at the sources and see if they prove notability or not. Thanks for the pointer it may be that the person who approved its creation did not look closely enough at the sources. You are right about looking for consistency! Domdeparis (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis, that is fine. I was waiting for you to react this way. You can also search for some more while you are at it. As I mentioned earlier, this is not the place for such discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this qualifies as a WP:BOOMERANG here...I looked at the 15 sources and not a single one of them is in-depth coverage of the subject. There is a source that cites him as being the composer of an award winning song but so there is no doubt that he meets the WP:NMUSIC criteria and "may" be notable because of this. The trouble is that there are no articles that meet the WP:GNG conditions of significant coverage. I had a look but could find nothing else on the web but as you have finally admitted to understanding what is needed to prove notability here after 6 people explaining the same thing to you I imagine that you will understand why I am going to PROD the article because it should uncontroversial now. That will give you a 7 day period to find the necessary sources. I'll cite the other deletion discussion in the PROD nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place. Go to the page. Bobbybobbie (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Domdeparis: Pace, but I don't think we need a PROD now, no offence to your good intentions- it's just that there's been plenty of drama over this so far, and the AfD seems now to have settled down. In any case- the AfD is now well into its 168-hour run, and will (probably) finish before the PROD expires. Just a thought. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I hear what you are saying but the page clearly doesn't meet GNG and as Bobby seems more inclined to listen now and not go round in circles without improving the article this might be exactly the right time to deal with this. 7 people (including 2 admins) have told him exactly the same thing in a multitude of different ways and it was only after one of the Admins took this to ANI that he finally calmed down and accepted the idea. I am afraid that if we don't strike whilst the iron is hot and he is in the right mood to understand then this will go on and on again. I don't want to Afd it because there is probably a good chance that he is notable, Bobby has shown no willingness to add extra sources himself as a show of good faith so a PROD seems to be the soft option that may be fruitful. Domdeparis (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Domdeparis; I think I misunderstood you. Are you talking about PRODding the second article mentioned above? I thought you were talking about re-PRODding the one already at AfD! -which, you see, I thought was unnecessary. As, indeed, I see you do too :D cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear I should have mentioned that it was the DJ Montay article I was talking about but to be fair every time I try to write something I'm in edit conflict with Bobby chiming in so often so I get a bit lost. Domdeparis (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, Bobbybobbie is bludgeoning the process at AFD. This is a type of disruptive behavior and is sanctionable. I see it has calmed down, but if it picks back up, you are looking at a block. At AFD, make your point and allow others to make theirs. Leave it to the closing admin to decide which arguments don't hold water. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good news! Bobby has just added the sources needed to prove GNG on the DJ Montay article and has rightly removed the PROD. I think that he may have finally got the message. Domdeparis (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a note - nominating the DJ Montay article, which came through the AfC process, for deletion, might be some as pointey or an abuse of process. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:--Just No.We had our fair share of problems w.r.t the reviewing of S.T-- culminating in him being revoked of the NPR and Autopatrolled user-right and (if my memory serves me well)--once nearly shown the door at WP:AFC.Keeping all these in mind and the solid PROD rationale, I fail to see any grounds for aspersing allegations of gaming the system on some experienced folks.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Winged Blades of Godric:, @Newimpartial: you misunderstood my motives in PRODDING the article, there is no gaming or vengeance involved. The editor kept referring to this article as being the proof that he was right and everyone else was wrong. It was impossible not to carry out due diligence and look at the article and see if he was right. When I looked at the article there was little doubt that the subject had claims to notability but the sources did not back this up. I PRODDED the article there and then because its creator seemed in the right frame of mind to understand the concerns and be willing to look for the sources required. I was proved right as he did the research, found the sources and added them and quite rightly removed the PROD. I admit I could have done that myself but my aim was to get him on board in terms of policy and guidelines and not to get the other article deleted. I honestly thought it would help him show good faith especially in the eyes of the admin reading this...it worked for about a couple of hours and then he got the bludgeon out again. Domdeparis (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Could someone uninvolved in the page take a peep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers). He may or may not have his bludgeon out again. I haven't looked myself. (ulcers) Thanks Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I skimmed the page's edit history and found that the vast majority of edits came from Bobbybobbie. Most of them were accompanied by big green numbers, suggesting he was adding quite a lot to the page. Quite a few of those numbers are boldened. Your worst fears may have been realized. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not just there either. He hasn't only been talking about it there either. We should also keep an eye on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Producers. I see it's been brought up before, but might get lost in the shuffle. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the actual discussion on notability, rather than byte counts, I think you'll see earnest discussion rather than bludgeon, in that case. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Taken on its own at face value, you're probably right. But considering what is under discussion here, it seems Bobbybobbie is dead set on seeing something turn out his way, and all I'm saying is we need to keep an eye on any avenue he has chosen to address the issue or anything related to it. It borders on Forum shopping but it's not nearly as out of control there as on that AFD... yet, at least. I also did not say I examined byte counts on that discussion, I only did so on the AFD. In fact, I didn't even bother with doing so on that other discussion since that's only one part of the page whereas the entire edit history of that AFD page is relevant to the topic at hand. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've clarified my initial remark. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 14:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He's at it again the bludgeon is out here Domdeparis (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dom took the words out of my mouth. I was just about to check to see if he had an opinion on this latest, and here it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He continues to repeat the same "WP:GNG does not apply 'cause it passes WP:Music" argument after every single "delete". I can see the badgering deterring people from commenting.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like most of you cannot fully understand the guidelines (pride?). That is not my fault - at all.

I don't see where I responded to every vote, or deterred anybody from voting. That's a little exaggerated.

If it is deleted on the ADF, I will just find it amazing that it's possible for a group people to band together on here (with assumptions) and overrule what has been written. Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said you were actually deterring people from voting. It would simply be understandable if they did refrain on that basis. Also, it was only said that you responded to every "delete" !vote. In fairness, that's not true - at least two !votes for deletion currently stand without a response from you - but be honest with yourself for a moment here: Four of your responses to delete !votes were placed inside collapsible templates. I've never seen such lengthy conversations arise from delete !votes - not even close. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobbybobbie: I think that you have really put your finger on the problem of your lack of understanding of Wikipedia when you use the phrase "group of people to band together on here (with assumptions) and overrule what has been written". Wikipedia is a community (a "group of people who band together" is almost a definition of a "community") that uses consensus to make decisions. There are now about 10 editors including admin and experienced editors that are telling you that you have misunderstood policy and guidelines. We are almost all saying the same thing that even if you think producers should be included in NMUSIC criteria they aren't at the moment. But even if they were we are all telling you that general notability criteria apply to all stand-alone articles. And we are all telling you that N4 fails these criteria as per the sources you have added. There is consensus on this point and you repeating over and over again your arguments does not outweigh this consensus of opinion. You may think you are right but no one agrees with you so you should really just walk away because your behaviour has become disruptive. Domdeparis (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: I don't know where you are getting this data from, but to one of the voters, I responded, "Thank you", as they took the time to try and understand the argument from neutral point of view.

My reason for responding to any delete vote was to find out how the voter came to their conclusion - not to change their vote. To be fair, they continued the discussion with me.

I can say that I repeated the same questions - that I was not getting answers to. I do apologize to the community for doing so. It is a very complex topic - perhaps this is why it is ongoing.

@Domdeparis: Yes, it's a consensus, but does't mean it is right. We are talking about the topic at WP:NMUSIC. I am no longer discussing the article, but I am discussing the subject of music notability (producers). Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Bobbybobbie, NMUSIC gets it's a authority from WP:GNG. GNG trumps NMUSIC. This isn't my opinion, it is fact. Passing NMUSIC means something is likely to pass GNG. It still must pass GNG. The problem is that you don't believe this, but you are wrong. Ignorance isn't the issue, however, actions are. Replying to most votes in an AFD with the same tired line (which is factually incorrect) is disruptive. Let me put this in plain Texas talk for you: Do it again and I will block you, no discussion will be needed. Actions like yours are exactly why I wrote the essay WP:BLUDGEON so many years ago. Consider this your last warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If I might just add here we have your attitude in a nutshell Bobbybobbie... "it's a consensus, but does't mean it is right". This ANI is about your attitude whether it be here, on the Afd page or on the NMUSIC talk page, you are waging a one-man war of attrition in the hope that by endlessly repeating the same thing everyone will finally give up out of frustration and let you win. Not sure that is going to work because it's disruptive and you refuse to accept one of the basic principals of editing in Wikipedia that consensus is important. Domdeparis (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the consensus is not following the guidelines - I am not obligated to agree with it. I am not here to win or lose. If my argument is not valued - the final outcome does not require nor depend on it. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are not obligated to agree with it, but you are obligated to follow it. That's what consensus is. And it's very unlikely to be one that is against guidelines; I don't see that happening in cases like these, where no one has anything to gain by disputing the subject's notability. If you're the only one or one of the very few who agree with your own point of view, that likely speaks volumes about what you're trying to defend. After a certain point, you just have to accept it and move on. And yes, you did thank one of the !voters - I saw that. But that doesn't change the fact that you engaged several lengthy conversations that were collapsed via templates and seen as bludgeoning by multiple observers; yes, they replied to you, but you didn't have to reply to them either. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The AFD has resulted in me opening a discussion over at WP:NMUSIC in regards to producers. I hope it contributes to the improvement of its guidelines. It may also result in some improvements to the record producer page. Bobbybobbie (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see I am at risk of being bludgeonous (is that even a word?) myself, so I'll be brief and make this my last reply. Be all that as it may, even if your intentions are the best possible, you must accept the result regardless of what it comes to. If the community at large does not agree with you, you must accept it and not open further discussion on the issue - exactly the same as you would do if your preferred consensus were achieved. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If that was what you wanted Bobby then you should have started there rather than driving us all to despair with you stubbornness. Read WP:CONSENSUS try and understand it and try and comply. Read WP:GNG and do the same thing and remember that it trumps everything as Dennis Brown said and you will waste less of your time and the community's. Domdeparis (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

this has got to have gone too far now, he's accusing an admin of being corrupt here because he said he went off topic (and I did too BTW by replying to his comment...sorry) Domdeparis (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked Bobbybobbie 24 hours for continued disruption after my final warning above, and for casting aspersions atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandals claiming a company, WOT Services, has gone out of business

Dear Wikipedia:

An article on the company WOT Services is repeatedly being vandalized to imply that WOT Services has gone out of business, with every "are" changed to "was" (in some edits the article lead is left "are" with "was" left in the remaining article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOT_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#Massive_vandalism_by_users_claiming_WOT_Services_went_out_of_business https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WOT_Services&action=history

The two vandals claim their edits are "sourced" yet fail to provide any reputable source that the company has gone out of business, either on the talk page or their user pages.

WOT services is a company which owns a browser security addon WOT, and a social community myWOT.com, which uses crowdsourced ratings of Web sites to power the addon.

WOT and its users (such as myself, myWOT user redblade7) have made many enemies over the years, mostly from MLM operations and right-wing organizations. Additionally there was a recent scandal involving the addon collecting excessive personal information.

I have been threatened with a Wikipedia ban for standing up for this company and its users, against the failure to provide any reputable source that WOT Services has closed its operations.

I have informed WOT services of this issue and am awaiting to hear from them. Also, there is a forum discussion on this (signup required):

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/77466-wikipedia-was-completely-rewritten-to-say-wot-doesn-t-exist-anymore

Please examine the situation and I ask that you lock the article against future vandalism.

Thank you, myWOT user redblade7

You mean this edit . If that's the same message - you appear to be moving the privacy concerns to the bottom, and are arguing over the use "was". No where in the article does it say WOT went out of business. You appear to be edit warring  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is a company "was" unless it doesn't exist anymore? -20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the modified, second vandal edit. Here is the original vandalism edit, by a user with no history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WOT_Services&diff=781833618&oldid=769777980 -

I am one of those vandals. I agree with the IP that the verb tense issue needs to be cleared up. However, Edit-warring [232] [233] [234] [235], shouting and accusing established editors of vandalism [236] [237] [238] [239] Are not the way to go about it. ANI is about behavior, not content - and the behavior of the IP should be examined closely. I can think of a few uses for a bent stick. Scr★pIron^IV 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AndyDingley was the one who told me to go to ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#Massive_vandalism_by_users_claiming_WOT_Services_went_out_of_business

It looks like the ip editor stopped reverting the article as soon as he was warned about the relevant edit-warring rules.

On the other hand, It's tough to see edits like this one as anything other than goading the IP editor who was trying to correct a legitimate problem with the article. ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Goading? As an admitted "involved editor", what are you even doing here? That is a straightforward question to the IP editor(s) as to what they're complaining over. They claim the article says the company went out of business, when it said no such thing. If they have a real complaint here that needs fixing, then they need to be specific about what it is. If they're just here to bounce between accounts, to make unsigned ANI posts, or to accuse other editors of "CLEVER VANDALISM", then they're NOTHERE for anything we want. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. You're edit warring to maintain a version of the page that uses, almost exclusively, the past tense. And then you oh-so-innocently say "Where in the article does it say 'was'?" Infuriating.

Either you're not reading the version you keep reverting, or that edit was intentionally obstructionist. Not good either way.

As for how "involved" I am, I apologize. That was a typo. On the talk page I meant to describe myself as "a completely uninvolved editor." The truth is I learned about this dispute here at ANI (I was here to read a thread about the RefDesk, and scrolled down.).

ApLundell (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the tenses I can see in this article are correct. This is a company that has had a past. It is uncertain if it can have a future afterwards. If you have found errors in it, then please state where they are. It is not enough to say "this is all wrong" when clearly so much of it is right and is sourced. The add-ons were pulled from distribution - you can't change that, just because it's highly embarrassing to WOT and they wish that they could. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• You are required to notify the editors you are accusing of vandalism. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You told what appears to be a novice editor that he should report you to ANI, so he did.

Novice users often miss the edit notices warning of them of the ANI rules.

ApLundell (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

redblade7 persists in describing other editors as vandals and making false claims like this, "There was another edit overnight where a user barely changed the lead but added "was" throughout the article. " in their outing thread here: https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/77466-wikipedia-was-completely-rewritten-to-say-wot-doesn-t-exist-anymore I don't believe such behaviour is compatible with editing Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Complaining off-wiki is entirely normal behavior for any person or company that feels libeled or vandalized on Wikipedia. You've steamrolled this user and then you complain that they haven't responded well to your behavior. So what? I think the user is acting quite reasonably to you.--v/r - TP 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd note that rvv was used when reverting the IP so while it's true redblade7 made an incorrect accusation of vandalism, they weren't the only one. Yes they made many more accusations of vandalism but how are we supposed to teach new editors what is and isn't vandalism when we're calling their edits vandalism which clearly aren't? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate / Rashid review

After failing to sway an editor through WP:Consensus, in a long discussion on WikiProject Islam/Talk Page, reduced to a rinse-and-repeat cycle. Its come to the point where we require some Administrator attention.

Excerpt from the initial discussion:

I was going to post this request to Wikipedia:Peer Review then figured it involves non-experts on the subject so might end up not working out.

Hasan ibn Ali / Rashidun Caliphate

I would like to bring to attention of the project's members (I am not a member) a certain user Leo1pard (talk) has been editing several articles, which from what I have seen involves changing the "four" Rashidun to the "five" by including Hasan ibn Ali, and effectively editing all related articles to reflect the same. In addition to various minor (but extensive) edits such as use of punctuation, namely the unconventional insert of apostrophe before everyone's name (Ali to 'Ali, and Uthman to 'Uthman). I think it constitutes WP:DIS and furthermore makes consistency harder to maintain among editors (WP:TRANSLITERATE), in addition to making it harder to search-find (for users who make the mistake of not inserting the 'apostrophe while searching the name). [See also: WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Grammatical standardization]

From View History for a better understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_ibn_Ali&type=revision&diff=781184705&oldid=732780086

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashidun_Caliphate&type=revision&diff=770913523&oldid=766436803
— [[User:DA1 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)]]

Despite an attempt to reach consensus through discussion, the user changed it anyways. That was 4 days ago, and I decided not to revert, until today. As its become apparent we can't reach "mutual" consensus...even if there was a consensus between the rest of us, as 3 editors including @Eperoton: @HaEr48: informed him that four Rashidun is conventional and backed by WP:RS, including Oxford & Britannica (besides religious sources); and all the other user can tell me is analogies and a few links which constitute a minority opinion or WP:Fringe theory (see also: WP:RSUW). At the very MOST we could make an inclusion of "XYZ regard Hasan to be a fifth Rashidun Caliph"; but this seems to be about narrative (WP:SOAPBOX), and what dictates the lead section, infobox, et al.

In lieu of repeating it all over again, please review the discussion and facilitate a verdict, if need be through technical measure. DA1 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI is not a place to facilitiate a verdict. You need to look at suitable forms of WP:Dispute resolution. That said, if another editor is changing multiple articles from a stable version and with multiple objections, they need to stop. Note however this doesn't mean discussion to reach a consensus should stop. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, it seems an RFC was already opened. This is a suitable form of dispute resolution. Hopefully others will join in the discussion soon. However since it doesn't seem a clear consensus has been reached (3 against 1 is always going to be seen a bit iffy until the arguments have been evaluated), and it's only been 4 days it isn't time to close the discussion. When it is time, hopefully someone uninvolved will come along and close it. If not, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfCs for closure. Note you do not need to go into great detail about the dispute there. In the absence of a clear consensus, you should wait at least 7 days but since I don't see any urgency here I don't see any reason not to wait the whole 30 days.

One final comment, it seems the discussion between all of you has died down there. This is probably a good thing since the primary purpose of RFCs is to get outside inpute. Ideally already involved editors should have hashed out any details beforehand and can just leave a summary of their opinions in the RFC. This didn't quite happen here which isn't necessarily wrong but still a long discussion between existing editors can be offputting to anyone else joining in.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks for the replies, you've been very helpful. Yes, I was really hoping we would get additional input from others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam seems to be 'dead' when it comes to cohesion and discussion (PAUSE). Even the Manual of Style section seems to be lacking; a lot of problems like inconsistent layout between articles, could easily be avoided if it was updated (and highlighted) so people could turn towards it for reference; The same way WikiProjects for say boxing or film or other Projects have. But we would need participation for that!

I don't know if it exactly "died down" per se, the other two contributers made their point and moved on. If you're an Admin (are you?), would you know about how to get about bringing more discussion and consensus for the WikiProject? The MOS could use some updating, its about time really. The RFCs weren't really of help either, since no one seemed to have joined after it was posted actually. -DA1 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In case, anyone else is reading this: the term "four Rashidun caliphs" and "four Rashidun" gives 930 and 1130 results on Google Books, respectively. The terms "five Rashidun caliphs" and "five Rashidun" gives exactly One and Two results, respectively. One being a blog, the other recommending our very own WikiProject discussion alongside the 2 results.

One of the ideas of an RFC is that hopefully people will see it listed and if they think they can help will join in. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet, and it's not certain it will happen but there's still a chance at least some others will joun. While it's too late to change now, the wording of the RFC isn't terrible but may not have helped. I don't think it's necessary to have the red text. In particular, while experts are always useful, it seems unnecessary as the primary point of contention is whether the sources available support the claim. Since some of the sources are in Arabic, if you wanted to say anything perhaps "It would be especially useful to get the input of people who understand Arabic but everyone is welcome". And probably the wording could be a little more neutral. By "died down" I did mean that it looked like everyone seemed to be satisfied they had made their point and were leaving it be. It isn't uncommon that people seem to feel they haven't and keep arguing back and forth which often results in something no one else feels like joining . The structure can also help, I recommend considering the structure at WP:RFC with a subsection for survey and one for threaded discussion in future. Discussing the RFC before hand can also help, both in phrasing the question and ensuring people have had the opportunity to make their important points. That way these can be summarised when opening the RFC and people hopefully don't feel they have to wade through a long discussion to understand the issues of contention. Unfortunately no matter how well you design the RFC, you also can't get round the fact there may not be enough people who are interested who will see it and there's no real solution to that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Qcpsyear4

User:Qcpsyear4 looks like a class name rather than an individual - and has gone mad creating new categories for their user page.Le Deluge (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User and categories are gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fresh from scandal about 50K-edits administrator Shirt58 admitting he eats kittens, Wikipedia lurches to new low as it blocks K-6 girls prep school/primary school/elementary school from creating year four/grade four class project about "foods around the world". Update: usual WP:ANI gadfly suspect EEng not available for comment, confirmed kitten-eater has apparently proxied for them. Pete "actually it was kittens sent to eat me, not the other way round" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Um, OK. Proud to be a role model for the community. More seriously, let's say this class of eleven-year-olds makes suggestions for contributions which the teacher types in as edits. Isn't there any way we can see this as fitting in with our licensing model e.g. the students are transferring the copyright to the instructor when they raise their hands and make the suggestion? Do we have to make a cute class project hypertechnically complex? EEng 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Biskovski7

• Biskovski7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 3 June 2016, Biskovski7 made what looked like a good faith edit to Life Is Strange. However, despite numerous edits to the contrary, and a warning, he repeated the edits until 8 April 2017, invariably without edit summaries. The same has been done to Vampyr (video game), which made me submit this to you today.

It is also clear that Biskovski7 does not care to correct mistakes,1234 as he received 4 disambiguation link notifications, none of which he repaired.

On 4 July 2016, the user made another dubious edit on a genre, now to The Notebook. On 7 July, having been reverted, he changed it back. User:Loriendrew warned of disruptive editing.

On 19 March 2017 to 2 April, he once again edited a genre disruptively, this time of The Conjuring 2. User:Dane notified him to no response.

His next project was Fifty Shades Darker, which also earned him a warning. He did not join the discussion concerning the edits, instead proceeding as normal. Another warning given.

In May, User:NinjaRobotPirate warned Biskovski7 about edits he made on Alien: Covenant.123 These edits did not stop until 21 May.

The last warning is as empty as the ones preceding it, this time concerning Black Swan.

With multiple warnings and no consequences, what do you expect will happen? Cognissonance (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This editor has refused to respond in my experience and it is my opinion that his behavior rises to the level of disruptive editing, potentially even WP:NOTHERE as his actions continued even after we assumed good faith. At the very least, i'd recommend a block to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. -- Dane ^talk 17:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I worried a bit that maybe I was overreacting when I warned him, but he was repeatedly breaking the same citation. Once or twice, OK, it seems like an accident. But by the third or fourth time, it looks like it's intentional. Maybe it's a case of being so incompetent that it's indistinguishable from outright vandalism? I don't understand why someone would repeatedly return to an article to do nothing but blank parts of a citation. If Biskovski7 would explain these edits, maybe we could avoid a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging more involved editors @EdJohnston, Betty Logan, Giantdevilfish, and TheOldJacobite: to extend the range of consensus. Cognissonance (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've only had the one encounter with him, on Black Swan, but a glance at his talk page indicated he's a long-term problem editor. If he's not willing to change or explain himself, I'd favor a block. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The user is now continuing to edit without responding to the ANI. I think it is time for a block. Back in April I had warned him due to a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes this fellow. I warned him numerous times to stop fudging the numbers for Fifty Shades Darker. He'll leave it alone for a couple of days and then come right back and fudge the numbers again. He's doing this on purpose. He knows we're telling him to stop and he keeps ignoring us and blatantly goes back to posting an inaccurate gross. Its time to ban this fellow because its obviously intentional. If you look at his page. other editors have told him to stop (and check the edits on Fifty Shades Darker), but he won't listen.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Adequate amout of warnings given without any evidence of collaboration or understanding of policies. I'd say we have had enough disruption from this person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just outright disruptive, I would block for being WP:NOTHERE. — JJBers 15:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked 3 days for disruption and failure to respond to concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest at Jesse Vint

After reading both this edit summary and this user page, I have no doubt to believe that Pagan wulff and Jesse Vint are the same person. I have warned this user about WP:COI twice on his talk page and I have also reported the user on WP:COIN. Regardless, he's still contributing to the article about himself. I need an administrator to please warn User:Pagan wulff about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with single-purpose accounts and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. Please note that I consider myself an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia (e.g. I don't understand what diffs are). My intention is NOT to start an edit war, so if I've made a mistake, please correct me. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Block on Newimpartial

After the close a few sections above which said no more warnings, Newimpartial has continued his efforts to obstruct spam cleanup and processing stale userspace drafts here [240] by dragging in an editor with similar views to him on protecting spam pages which lead to this by his new proxy [241] He is still questioning my activity with admins here [242] and here [243]. He's still casting aspirations against me still based on wrong assumptions and a lack of understanding of deletion process and policy while digging deep in my extensive editing history to find justification for his little obstructionist project. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - this whole thing kicked off about 15 hours ago, and as near as I can tell in the fifteen threads started since that time (on 12 different pages) Newimpartial is simply trying to figure out what's going on. They're new, they got excited about something, and they're trying to figure out why the guidelines say one thing while (multiple) editors are doing something seemingly contradictory. I do agree, however, that they're being less-than-civil with regard to their tone regarding Legacypac, but to say that Godsy is a meatpuppet purely because they became interested in the case is a bit problematic in and of itself. I think both sides need to chill out. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Give him a chance. He's stopped the disruptive tagging, and it is reasonable to ask questions. WP is not all that simple to understand: the policies and guidelines interact in complicated ways. And, Legacypac, you need to AGF about the other editor, not call them a "proxy". DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to mount a "defense" except to note the mass of MfDs and CSDs here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Legacypac&offset=&limit=500&target=Legacypac> and the uncivil exchanges on the part of Legacypac here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lasersharp/Taipei_Interactive_English_Club> and here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Andwats/Don_Fex> Legacypac also referred to my removal as CSD tags as "vandalism", which is not very WP:CIVIL to say about a WP:GOOD FAITH edit. I apologize for being opinionated beyond my experience, and I have withdrawn in participation in MfD or deletion nominations, but there was certainly no bad faith in my part. I do feel that WP:BITE has not been followed in this case so far, present company excepted :).Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And I never was "obstructionist"; I only wanted the process outlined in WP:STALE to be followed as I understood it. But I have let that go. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I never used the term meatpuppet but I provided a diff where he asked another editor to do what he was being told not to do. I AGF but CIR. mass targeting my CSD tags to protect spam is vandalism just like inserting spam yourself. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you not tell the difference between "protecting spam" and WP:GOOD FAITH due process, Legacypac? Because that is literally what this whole thing hinges on. I was never "protecting spam".

Nor was I "mass targeting". I was looking at each case on the merits - maybe not correctly, but thoughtfully - which is why I was annoyed and wanted to see the pages that were deleted so quickly that I didn't get a chance to look at what you were labelling. And there were definitely errors in your CSD tags; I think everyone can agree about that, even the admins who deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I first noticed Newimpartial due to their participation at miscellany for deletion which I frequent. I noticed the first an/i thread through my watchlist which lead me to become interested in the related drv. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No it hinges on WO:CIR and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors who are trying to educate you. When you start accusing me all over the site of plots and misdeeds while systematically undoing my spam clean up work, you exhast my WP:AGF toward you. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But at no time was I "systematically undoing". First I was reviewing MfDs on their merits - not especially yours, and not always voting "keep" - and then I was reviewing CSDs on their merits - not just yours, and not always "undoing" or objecting. You can say I wasn't applying the criteria used by the group currently engaged in patrolling the userspace drafts, and you would be right as it turns out, but I was certainly not "systematically undoing" anything, and I only referred to what I understood as your attempts to get around WP:CONSENSUS on a few of the pages in which the actual deletions were being discussed, until I "made it" to ANI. Then I stopped participating in XfD discussions, pretty much immediately, and only then - and because you had not made any response to the issues that I had raised about WP:STALE policy - I mentioned it to a couple of other editors and admin. That isn't "accusing you all over the site", by any stretch of the imagination, and I'd stand by my record of remaining relatively WP:CIVIL; I certainly didn't resort to threats, as you did. Your WP:AGF was over pretty much before it started, as I think the diffs I posted above demonstrate.Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. THis is another example of how Wikipedia fails disaterously to properly inform new users about what they can and can't do when they sign up. Not everyone is as intuitive as us old-age pensioners who never even grew up in a computer environent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Newimpartial's comments are very condescending with bullshit blue links and redundant advice. It might not be trolling but either it is intentionally provocative in the hope that Legacypac will explode or go away, or Newimpartial's comments indicate WP:CIR problems. If someone has a point to make, just make it. Newimpartial has recently been involved in a lot of "discussion" on numerous pages (including my talk)—has there been a commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait and see. If there's one thing more loathsome than a spammer, it's a spam enabler. What I see here is a new user off to a very very bad start, and compounding the situation by refusing to listen to advice, being argumentative, etc. I don't think it quite raises to the level of an indefinite block just yet, and I've seen new editors recover from worse, but if Newimpartial continues along their current path their time on Wikipedia will be short indeed. At this point, the ball's in their court: they can take some advice from Legacypac and others and help us improve wikipedia, or continue their current trajectory until they've spent so much time on the naughty list that a block is inevitable. I'd like to hope it's the former, but we shall see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• I see an allegation by Newimpartial of "Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations" as justification for CSD detagging. This is a serious allegation. I ask User:Legacypac to enable User:Legacypac/CSD log, to turn it on using the preferences panel, for transparency. A quick random check of contributions reveals a lot of tagging and some bad tagging [244][245][246][247] (NB this search is biased as it can only find CSD taggings on undeleted pages). I suspect Legacypac may be slightly deletionist with respect to random useless stuff, but not deserving of anything beyond a polite discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations is currently chock-full of mistagged article drafts. I'd go through and decline just about all of them (maybe one in twenty so far have been bad enough to speedy as a G11), but I already know the ensuing discussion wouldn't be polite. —Cryptic 04:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I checked the As. Mostly the tag is good. The rest, U5 is a stretch, with a stretched overlap with G11, and none will ever make mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is some spam fighting or New Page Patrol or something more productive for SmokeyJoe to do then searching my CSD tags especially since every tag is already directly reviewed by an Admin. As best I can tell my CSD acceptance rate is over 99%. Occasionally Admins don't see something I spotted (could not spot the hoax in one case today) or disagree. I've analysed SmokeyJoe's 4 diffs here [248] I feel it quite unfair to call any of those 4 (out of 1000s generated fighting spam) to be bad tags.

The last couple days made some progress on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts but WOW there is a lot of accumulated spam/copyvio/hoaxes etc in there. @Cryptic I've observed your understanding of WP:U5 differs from that of many other Admins. For me if you combine unsuitable material for wikipedia plus no or few mainspace contributions (usually zero outside a single user page) that = U5 and I apply U5 in line with how I've observed other Admins use it. There are often other reasons to delete the page but I tend to pick the one that is easiest for the reviewing Admin to confirm (like U5). Copyvio and hoaxes take longer to confirm for example. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If by "other Admins" you mean User:RHaworth, who'll delete almost anything that's tagged on the basis of whether he thinks it's a viable article rather than looking at what the criteria say, and who ended up deleting every one of those, then I suppose you're right - no other admin was willing to touch them in the intervening seven hours. (It neither surprises nor disappoints me that nobody declined any of them; I couldn't see any of them ever surviving a move to mainspace either.) U5 specifically excludes pages that are plausibly intended to be drafts, though, and every one of those was, and most were explicitly marked as such: if you look at the discussion enacting U5, you'll find that allowing drafts was unanimously opposed. It's largely because of stretching the criteria like this that we haven't been able to pass speedy criteria that cover these hopeless drafts, whether by removing the AFC requirement for G13, by introducing modified versions of the A* series, or by anything else that's been proposed. —Cryptic 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone else adding a "User Space Draft" box turns drive by editor dumps into drafts that can't be deleted we should change the wording on that box asap to say something like "this is a page in userspace that may have never been reviewed by anyone other than its creator and may be subject to deletion according to Wikipedia policy (link UPNOT). Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The characterization of this situation is inaccurate. An editor disagreeing with another editor isn't a reason for a block, especially if they are newer and have just been given advice from the community (and appear to have made adjustments). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment One thing which may want to be asked is "Who is Newimpartial, anyway?"
  The account was created on 4 August 2008. They then made two edits, and didn't edit again for 3 1/2 years, when they made 5 edits, then laid off for 2 1/2 years until September 2014, when they edited for 7 days. They edited for 2 days in February 2015, 2 days in March 2015, and 1 day in August 2015. They then skipped to January 2016, when they edited for 3 days, then to March 2016 when they edited for 3 days, then to February 2017 for 3 days of editing, March 2017 for 2 days, April 2017 for 2 days. Since then Newimpartial has edited more or less continuously from May 16, 2017. This is an extremely odd pattern of editing. It's almost as if they were editing with this account when another account wasn't available to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support block - After looking at Newimpartial's arguements at MfD, I see only two possibilities: they are either a troll, or they are incompetent. This is not an editor who's trying to "figure things out", this is an editor whose arguments show that they believe they have already figured things out, only their interpretations of our policies fly in the face of their obvious and accepted meanings. Their comments also show a great deal more exposure to those policies (albeit with total misunderstanding of them) then is explainable by their editing history (see my comment just above). I do not believe Newimpartial is here to build an encyclopedia, they seem to be here to stir things up. I see no reasonable alternative given this editor's behavior than an indef block, and if a CU could see their way clear to doing a scan, I think it's likely that there would be positive results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

reply by Newimpartial I have agreed to stay away from XfD discussions until I have an appropriate level of experience and insight into the relevant policies, including MVUA training, and am doing so. I accept that there are unwritten rules that I need to learn in order to interact constructively on XfD.

BMK, I do not understand why you see my pattern of editing as extremely odd - it is called being middle-aged, having a life elsewhere, and looking at Wikipedia as a side project. I also do not see how one such as myself, half of whose edits are unreverted improvements to articles, is "not here to build an encyclopedia". For some reason you seem to be out to violate WP:AGF and WP:BITE, in spite of good faith on my part that literally almost everyone else I've interacted with seems able to see.

I was asked to stay away from XfD until I knew what I was doing, and I am complying with that. The only administrative discussion I have participated in since then has been the Godsy/Legacypac debacle, which I unknowingly found myself in the middle of before this round got underway - I was accused of being Godsy's "proxy" by Legacypac, or technically vice versa, before I knew what that meant, just as I was accused by Nyttend of gaming a set of rules that I didn't even know existed.

BMK, I accepted you going through my comments to the Godsy/Legacypac ANI and inserting that "the above comment was made by a clueless noob" because (1) I had already provided my piece of the elephant and (2) you were right in an important way. But your accusations are way, way over the line. Go ahead and scan if you like, and I have already agreed to leave XfD alone, but please don't call for a block on someone who is just here to edit articles and who only got involved in XfD out of a fear of draft loss and content deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would like Newimpartial to leave be. If a stale user page is improperly tagged for CSD, I'm sure an admin will be smart enough to figure it out. I know I am. And until (s)he learns to recognize obvious G11's, (s)he needs to stop arguing for G11 userpages to be kept. There are many areas on this wiki that could use improvement. Maybe some of that zeal could be used sourcing the many BLP's that need sourcing. Anything but worrying about user pages and CSD's.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• PS Legacypac and Newimpartial should stay away from each other. Nothing goog comes of them being on the same page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing goog at all? EEng 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block At least soem of what was assigned as "disruption" was a perfectly proper DRV nomination of a grossly improper CSD deletion. Some of Newimpartial's edits were in error, but i see no reason to assume bad faith, nor the kind of competence problem that is likely to mdo significant harm to the project. There is no reason to block here. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too soon. Newimpartial may have made mistakes or jumped to conclusions, but throwing a block his way is overkill. Yintan  09:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for WP:BOOMERANG

As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Meanwhile, Legacypac, who launched this ANI, has continued to WP:HOUND me [249] and threaten me [250]. I would therefore like to see a boomerang ban placed on them, and would be willing to accept a two-way interaction ban (since I am already honoring the terms of one already). Legacypac's "attention" is distracting me from contributing to content, which is why I am WP:HERE.Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth is a boomerang ban? Yintan  19:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting that Legacypac receive a one-way interaction ban so that the hounding and threats noted above will stop. I referred to it as a "boomerang" because Legacy's attacks on me essentially started with this ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In which case you have shown, once again, that you're not quite up to speed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A ban? After one message that isn't even a proper threat? Come on. I strongly suggest you withdraw this request because you're not doing yourself any favours. Furthermore, with all due respect, you seem to keep a closer eye on Legacypac than the other way around. Judging by the updates you post here about his edits, at least. Finally, if you find this thing "distracting" from contributing to the encyclopedia, then simply walk away from ANI. Nobody is forcing you to read/write on this board. Kind regards, Yintan  20:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a one-way Iban after I asked Legacy to stop hounding and they responded with the threat I linked above. I thought that mine was a measured response, considering they have an open ANI against me. Under this circumstance, I can't really unfolow ANI but I will once this is over. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This ANi is a direct follow on to this ANi [251] started with:

"Would someone mind imposing a WP:CIR block on User:Newimpartial? This user's repeatedly declining userspace spam tags (see User:Bubba1987/Kyle Irion, User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx, and User:Rabbithatch/Gina Phillips), getting past the point of WP:STICK, and complaining at my talk that these aren't spam when I delete them (see [281] and [282]), and when I gave a final warning, he conveniently decided to file a DRV for Shy Kidx, which means that I can't block him. Comments by other users at his talk demonstrate that he doesn't understand how we apply multiple speedy deletion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" and closed with

"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGG who know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)"

I'm one of the editors that have been willing to help Newimpartial learn, but the continued digested grass opinions popping up in ANi and elsewhere consistently attacking me have stretched my WP:AGF. Per the warning I posted on Newimpartial's talk [252] which has been completely thumbed by this new section, I suppose I should get started on assembling diffs. I was planning on something more fun this evening after eye surgery. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, how did I "thumb" your "warning"? I cited the diff of your threats in the opening post I made to this section. And I do not see how posting relevant diffs to your ANI below constitutes "digested grass". Is WP:CIVIL of no relevance to you at all?

Take your time on the diffs, though. It doesn't seem that this is going away quickly, much as I would like for the whole ANI you started to be over, so I can concentrate on contributions without looking over my shoulder. Newimpartial (talk)

You mean posts like this attacking my editing and confirming how confused you really are?

"Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)" with the response:

"The above editor is a clueless newbie who recently had a dispute with Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)"

I've got more quotes to post too. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a perfect example of a good faith question which, by the way, you never answered. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also note that after BMK questioned my bona fides for participating in your ANI, below, I have not editorialized but only presented (and briefly explained) a couple of relevant diffs. That is, I ceased participating in the back and forth when asked. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

you are an inexperienced editor with about 1000 total edits, with maybe half on ANi, DRV, MfD and assorted Admin talk pages all telling experienced editors [253] they have vandal fighting all wrong. AFAIK Newimpartial has never applied a CSD tag (but did remove some), initiated an MfD or AfD, or done anything resembling vandal fighting or content curation. One who has never swung a hammer is not entitled to tell all the experienced carpenters they are clueless about framing. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a completely inaccurate characterization of my posting. When it was suggested that I stop participating in XfD until I had a clue (advice, not a decision), I followed the suggestion.

I only participated in your ANI because it was your pursuit of someone you had referred to (bizarrely) as my "proxy" (see the ANI against me that you linked above), and because it concerned the same behaviour on your part that led you to this ANI against me. And when BMK suggested that my opinions were not wanted in that discussion, I stopped offering them. I most certainly haven't "told all the experienced carpenters they are clueless" - all I want is to be free from your hounding and threats. As I pointed out above, I would be willing to accept two-way Iban since I am already observing the strictures of one on my own initiative. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:. You've now moved up from "threat" to "threats", plural. Where are Legacypac's other threats? Apart from that one message you consider a threat on your Talk? Because if he is making personal attacks he should of course be sanctioned. But as far as I can tell he isn't. Yintan  15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Another of Legacy's "contributions" that I regarded as hounding/a threat is the one on another admin's page which I replied to here [254] which, curiously, does not seem to show up on edit summaries. I did not receive a reply to this query. Newimpartial(talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:. Being mentioned like that is not a threat. Other editors are perfectly entitled to do that. If you want to see threats, read my userpage. And since both your and Legacypac's ban requests have less chance of survival than a snowball in hell, I'm leaving this thread. As much as I like circles, going round in them is boring. Kind regards, Yintan  17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Islamic Political Science Mafia" looks like an online roleplay to me. ;) 01:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at Maldives

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

---

203.196.32.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) An ip editor, 203.196.32.136, has had 5 warnings about editing the article Maldives. He has gone thorugh 2 "final warning" templates. This is a proposal for a block. Here are some difs of edits he has created:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3
• Edit 4
• Edit 5
• Edit 6

Jamesjpk (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruption and edit warring by User:Chas. Caltrop

@Chas. Caltrop: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&action=history Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What action is it you are asking administrators to take here? I see no attempt to engage this user in a conversation or attempt to talk with them. That route should be taken before bringing them here. Anyway their diffs just look like a standard content dispute. Please try and resolve this on the talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

he/she is clearly edit warring over a number of days is this not a bannable offence?Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So far, what conversation there has been has come in the form of edit summaries. In that mode, he has been asked to take it to the talk page at least once, without result. His own edit summaries tend to be vague boilerplate cut/paste style, with hints of WP:IDHT, and accusing other editors of his own behavior. Several experienced editors have reverted him over the last couple of weeks, and still he persists. The dispute seems to be mostly a matter of encyclopedic style, with fussy, verbose "grammar corrections" being what drew my attention to this editor's activity. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A pure content edit war that doesn't require admin intervention. All parties are just as guilty of edit warring. Engage in talk on the talk page and get consensus as some of their edits seem reasonable. If you get consensus on the talk page and they persist against consensus then we can discuss warnings etc, but until then it's a pure content dispute and the worst of it seems like the article may just get locked at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've opened a topic at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect and pointed Caltrop at it, on his own talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protected. I've protected the page for three days to prevent further edit warring. El_C 07:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by CombatMarshmallow using New Jersey IPs

User:CombatMarshmallow was indeffed for promoting his hardcore punk band Hogan's Heroes (band) from New Jersey. He has returned to editing with IP addresses from the same area of New Jersey. As before, he has very strong opinions about hardcore punk and metalcore music, and he's been trying to put his stamp on music genre topics, so that the history shows his point of view.

• 50.234.3.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 73.150.168.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:1540:4DDC:16FC:4184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:65C1:5119:E95F:B1C8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:4970:A214:767F:A8D8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:C9EB:5F76:A29:4C35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:8D17:F493:BBAA:CC1C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:B5F2:42C2:86A7:450F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:129:49A2:EA99:1CB8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:F9F9:CA3B:611D:D78B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:59A0:B4AB:2913:5BD8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:301B:701:3200:A4EB:8AB2:4CE9:4E60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy has accused others of socking, for instance Statik N[255] and myself.[256]

The IP 73.150.168.222 has previously been blocked for block evasion. Needs another, longer, block.

The IP 50.234.3.132 is the relative newcomer here. His first-ever edit was to continue an edit war at hardcore punk,[257] restoring an edit he had made earlier using another IP.[258] His second edit was to revert an accurate change at one of the Hogan's Heroes articles.[259] Please give 50.234.3.132 a lengthy block.

I would be interested to know whether a rangeblock can be tightly focused on the 2603:301B:701:3200 series of throwaway IPs, without serious collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked 50.234.3.132 for a month. The IPv6 range is stale. Nobody has used it in two months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah - I just blocked it. Actually, it's a no-loss situation, because there are no edits on that /64 from anyone except the editor concerned, and they might go back to it now that their other IP is blocked. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Linode racist

Relates to the thread above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Extremist racist edits from User:104.237.147.221 - I've seen this guy a round a lot in the last few days and have just blocked another of his Ips. He uses Linode, usually duplicates his edits in the edit summary, and has a very distinctive pattern that I'm not going to repeat here. I'm about to vanish for the weekend, so someone else will need to do the investigating, but here are the IPs I've seen so far:

• 104.237.147.221
• 66.228.57.232
• 45.33.100.84
• 45.79.197.52

There are probably more (I'm sure there were a few others) but I don't have the time to search them out right now. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I range blocked 38.132.120.0/24 for a week. It seems to be spewing a lot of racism. I also range blocked 45.33.0.0/17, 66.228.32.0/19, and 104.237.128.0/19 for a year as webhosts. 45.79.0.0/16 is already range blocked for a year. I assume it's safe to just range block any of these Linode IP ranges that become disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Following up to my own post here, but I also range blocked 74.207.224.0/19, 96.126.96.0/19, 173.230.128.0/19 for a year. The latest vandalism redirects articles instead of adding explicitly racist wording. There's a beta feature on recent changes that lets you search for "very likely bad faith" edits. It sometimes catches this stuff. If anyone sees more of this, they can leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor

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

---

@Sagecandor: is an editor focused primarily on anti-Donald Trump pages.

Sagecandor has recently been focused on Malcolm Nance and the various books he’s written. I've tried to discuss the Malcolm Nance article with him, both on the talk page and on WP:BLPN, he will only say "there are no reliable sources" for material that I have provided primary and secondary sources for, and he refuses to discuss the merits of my change. He has reverted my changes, and he previously added the Discretionary Sanctions warning to that page, so I am declining to edit that page further.

He also reverts what I feel to be reasonable changes, and seeks out new forums for argument (such as WP:3O) while not engaging in any debate himself. [260]

When questioned, either on WP:BLPN or elsewhere ( User_talk:Seraphim_System#Please_stop_making_false_baseless_claims, Talk:Defeating_ISIS/GA1, he engages in rules-lawyering and refuses to discuss the merits.

Power~enwiki (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but seeking out third opinions at WP:Third opinion is an encouraged part of dispute resolution [261]. As is reporting WP:BLP issues to WP:BLPN [262], and reliable source questions to WP:RSN [263]. The Malcolm Nance page gained consensus from myself, Dumuzid, and Nomoskedasticity that, per WP:BURDEN, users who wish to add disparaging claims about a living person need to back up their claims with reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

When asked for reliable secondary sources per WP:BLP to back up his negative claims, Power~enwiki refuses (see Response to my question, "Can you provide a secondary source that makes that claim?", he responds, with [264]). Instead, he cites Twitter and YouTube [265]. WP:BLP pages should rely on the best sources possible for negative claims meant to disparage a living person. When I cite policy and ask that we stick to WP:SECONDARY sources where possible, he posts in all bold and italics, rather than back up his claims with reliable sources [266]. Sagecandor (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell: I strongly believe we should stick to reliable sources on all pages, especially about living people. I support users posting source questions to WP:RSN, living person questions to WP:BLPN, and using WP:Third opinion as part of WP:Dispute resolution. Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:, this is now getting out of hand. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works; discussing sources is not "wikilawyering." I agree with you to some degree on substance, but you have to realize that on Wikipedia, what matters are the sources. The sources you have provided are borderline at best, and for me, definitely do not pass muster for a BLP. Find sources. Form consensus. Whatever you think you're doing now, it strikes me as sub-optimal. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Sagecandor: is an editor focused primarily on anti-Donald Trump pages" - this is pure truth. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari -- let's say I agree with you. What does this "pure truth" mean we should do? Anything? Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see, is he an editor only focussed on adding negative content to the pages of a living person? if he is and I think he is then arbitration has concerns and stated guidelines for what to do with such a contributor. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I've stated above I strongly support WP:BLP and WP:RS. User has failed to back up their claims. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, I presume you'll agree with me that negative content is just fine if strongly sourced. If you have concerns, by all means, provide specific examples. It's not a problem on Wikipedia to have a different point of view than you do, or than I do, for that matter. Dumuzid (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Ongoing vandalism from T-DEYbrand (talk) at Garia

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

---

They have been removing content from that article over and over again. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's personal attacks

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

---

While I've been trying to factually argue and objectively reason my edits, the only thing this user seems to be able to do – not the first time – are ongoing violations (combined with highly disruptive unreasoned reverts): Current example, accusing me of "crapvertising" for reasonably adding a better and more current photo, not in the slightest wanting to promote any random sponsor. I've not tried to open a discussion after that as such tries are unfortunately never answered by that otherwise very disruptively acting user. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at Talk:Dani Daniels, since no discussion on any talk pages seems to have occurred about this content dispute. Hope this helps. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Example for no given answer regarding an issue that has as well been reverted by him: [267]. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• That is not a personal attack because it makes no claim about an editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is merely defending Wikpedia from crapvertising, so that term was used in the edit summary. The term very accurately describes diff which changed the lead image from something suitable to this. Promoting a porn website is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree; the original version puts the subject in a more neutral light. The second one just screams both "billboard" and also is probably inappropriately licensed judging from the blaring "BAS" text in the top-left corner; look at the description, where we reminded uploaders "This image contains digital watermarking or credits in the image itself. The usage of visible watermarks is discouraged". It's crappy advertising, in duplicate; both for the mentioned website and the original photog. The revert was justified, find a better photo or leave the article be as-is. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NLT

[268]. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's another "Yeah, whatever" threat from a troublemaker, but still violates WP:NLT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked one month before seeing this.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick additions and deletions of blank lines

Hello,
I have noticed something strange on the categories about Brazil. For instance, please look at the history of the category "Workers' Party (Brazil) politicians". On this category, since 23 October 2016‎, several users are only quickly adding and deleting blank lines. When looking at the contributions of these accounts, it seems that they are doing that on many pages.
Is it a known phenomenon? Is it a known vandal? What to do?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's someone I call "the Brazilian whitespace vandal". He engages in crapflooding and article blanking. You can read a bit more at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks. I blocked the IP for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no content issue, but since it makes the page history rather useless, I've deleted the revisions-in-question at the Workers' Party politicians category, and if someone's got the time and the inclination, I think similar action should be done elsewhere too. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate and Nyttend. I have read User:NinjaRobotPirate/Socks and the related discussions. Well, when looking at his global contributions, yesterday, he attacked 4 wikipedias at the same time during 40 minutes. The next time, what should I do? request the stewards at Meta-Wiki for a global block? or request for a block here? or do nothing (because he will certainly be long gone when I will see the vandalisms)? --NicoScribe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but requesting a global block at m:SRG might be the best solution. You can always request a block here, too. If I see it, I'll block him. People unfamiliar with the case may be reluctant to block him, so you might want to show them the page I wrote (or make your own page about the vandal). I should probably report him to the stewards after I block him, but sometimes I'm lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This guy has the ultimate dynamic IP: both IPv4 and IPv6. I therefore don't see the point of a block. Perhaps we could do a filter that looks for repeated adding-and-subtracting of lines? People constantly add or remove single lines for good reason (e.g. there's no line break, or there's too much whitespace), so of course we'd want it to go only if the same thing's been repeated. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate and Nyttend: it seems that yesterday he used 200.207.148.63 (talk · contribs). His global contributions show that he attacked the same 4 wikipedias. --NicoScribe (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's difficult to do range blocks. From what I can tell, the vandal is using 200.207.0.0/16, 177.138.0.0/15, 177.45.0.0/16, 187.74.0.0/16, 191.254.0.0/15, and 2804:431:d000::/37. Probably other ranges, too. There are a bunch of edits from this vandal at Dictator and Initial D (film). I could probably manage something, but it would take a bit of effort and probably result in collateral damage. Nyttend's suggestion of an edit filter is probably the best solution. Either that or semi-protecting the regular targets. The alternative is that I end up range blocking an entire Brazilian ISP, which might not go over too well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, there are more than 4 wikipedias. He is frequently vandalizing the same articles, so it is easy to find global contributions of other IP addresses: in the past, he attacked de, en, es, fr, id, la, pt, simple...

He is fond of practical jokes, but looking at the history of the article "Dilma Rousseff" on Wikipedia in Spanish since 20 nov 2016‎ does not make me laugh. Note that you can find other IP ranges just looking at these two links. --NicoScribe (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I added a few of the English-language articles to my watchlist. That should make it easier for me to block specific IP addresses when they pop up. It won't stop him, but it will limit the damage he can do. It's harder to justify blocking older IP addresses that aren't actively being disruptive any more. I also semi-protected a few articles. I'll semiprotect more of them as they become targeted. Many of them seem to be based on authoritarianism, Brazilian politics, comedy films, and actors. I might have to write up a full LTA report on this person to keep my notes organized. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I made a request at WP:EFR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TravisGTAGamer

Personal attacks: [269], [270], [271].

Removing valid maintenance templates and merge proposal notices after final warning [272].

Misleading edit summaries: [273], [274], [275], [276].

Vandalising other user pages: [277], [278], [279], [280].

Repeated copyright violations: [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286] after multiple warnings on talk page: User talk:TravisGTAGamer

This user seems to think that adding a notability template on an article, opening merge proposal and tagging copyright violations on files are examples of vandalism. Responds with uncivil behaviour, shouting, personal insults, making false claims that other users are vandalising, and edit warring. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left him a note to play nice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: also, just for future reference, dumping a load of warning templates on someone's talk page does not constitute discussion. It's a bit of a pain in the arse to try and mediate a dispute between two parties when you haven't made any attempt to resolve it yourself, and as far as I can see you haven't made any attempt to actually talk to him about any of this. Apologies if you have and I've missed it. But please don't come to ANI in future without attempting discussion first. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: The editor claimed I vandalised an article and called me a dickhead simply for placing a notability template on an article: [287]. This was before I ever placed a warning template on their talk page. There is nothing to resolve or discuss. It's just one noobie editor being troll because they can. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk and The1337gamer: I saw the edit the user made to The1337gamer's talk page and, after reading through the user's various talk page warnings, left a message in addition to what Basalisk said. Ping me if you reply to me. I know better than to watchlist this page. — Gestrid (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible politically-motivated vandalism of the Democratic Unionist Party page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Unionist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=784980350 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Prioryman https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Brothers_in_Arms_mural.jpg&oldid=247375517 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Prioryman https://www.flickr.com/people/40838054@N00 -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

A reverse Google Image Search turns up this image, which seems to be the original. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Come on, the image was an obvious forgery even to the naked eye (and even to me, and I am legally-required to have my eyes re-tested by the British authorities every single year for the rest of my life)! There is no question! He clearly abused his User Rights BOTH here in Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons...and he almost certainly had hacked into someone else's Flickr account! Is Wikipedia now basically an an-Tory/Conservative, anti-GOP/Republican openly Left-wing troll site (and welcome computer hackers who lurk on Tor and 4chan to edit here)?! If it is (and anyway), it is good to know! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

---->...we aim to please!  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Language issues at El Wa3ra

• Boumediene15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am having ongoing issues with an Algerian editor at El Wa3ra. Boumediene15's user page indicates he is able to communicate with an "advanced" level of English but, as a native English speaker, I'm having trouble accepting that based on his edits. Our first interaction was over Category:Public Establishment of Television which I nominated for deletion and from which Boumediene15 deleted the CfD notice multiple times.[288][289][290] He then created El Wa3ra, which had a number of issues that I fixed,[291] but since then it has been nothing but an uphill battle. I have attempted to explain on the editor's talk page and provided more detailed edit summaries but I seem to be getting nowhere. When I fix something or add a tag, like a request for clarification of an obscure phrase, it's generally reverted without explanation and Boumediene15 doesn't seem interested in engaging on his talk page. Some of the issues that keep getting fixed and then reverted are:

• Incorrect use of infobox fields
• WP:OVERLINK
• WP:REPEATLINK
• WP:REDNOT
• removal of {{clarify}} requests without clarifying - what, for example, does "to register artworks" mean?
• restoration of Algerian month names (i.e. "juin" instead of "June")

I'm trying to assume good faith, hoping that this is a case of an editor with a poor understanding of English rather than someone deliberately being disruptive but I only speak English (and a little German). I don't understand French, Algerian, Arabic, Algerian Arabic or whatever Boumediene15 speaks and am hoping someone here might be able to help. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left him a note. Let me know if this continues to be a problem. Just go ahead and make the changes to the article to improve the wording and we'll go from there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As you noticed, he called my edits vandalism, before removing the clarification requests again.[292] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the talk page empty? Why did you not use the talk page? --Tarage (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As the only other editor, and the page creator, I contacted Boumediene15 on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Self reporting possible canvassing

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

---

I am really trying to do the right thing here, and need advice. As someone with high-functioning autism, I sometimes take things too literally, and I need to know if this is one of those times.

I was asked by Alex Stinson (Wikipedia Library Projects Manager, Wikimedia Foundation) to post a couple of RfC announcements, [293] which I did.[294][295]

I am always very careful to avoid WP:CANVASSING, but these two announcements might be seen as violating the "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion" portion of that policy. When I posted my original list of announcements, I was careful to include individuals on both sides of the previous discussions and to avoid announcing on pages which have a lot of editors concerned with privacy (likely to !vote for Question #5: silent referrer) or pages which have a lot of editors concerned with WMF fundraising (likely to !vote for Question #3: full domains).

Do the two edits above violate our canvassing policy, or am I being too careful?

For what it's worth, I personally sort of want to canvass for editors who disagree with me. Having a bunch of reasonable objections pop up at the "make a request to the WMF" stage that were not addressed at the "English Wikipedia RfC" stage would make it less likely that the WMF would say yes to the request. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Were you intentionally trying to draw the "right people" to your proposal? Was that the result? It looks like the answers to both questions is no, so in my opinion you're in the clear :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You're being way too careful. This doesn't even come close to canvassing, you're just announcing the RfC in appropriate places. Kleuske (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Have a tea, nothing to worry about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

New user's page redirects to sockpuppet account

Account blocked, nac, SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:TypingInTheSky is a new user, but their user page already exists as a redirect to User:JaJa0N11, a user who has been blocked for socking. I'm not sure on the history of the second account, or what exactly is going on here. Could someone straighten this out? (Not notifying user.) Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI case. Requested rename was here. Indeffed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

JaJa0N11 was blocked as a sockpuppet, but not of Alvandria - it was HalloweenNight, whose user pages were moved by JaJa0N11, who was mentioned on the SPI page. There's no evidence there to link the account that now has the name TypingInTheSky to either of them; the case hasn't been edited since last year. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Hide this page-move vandalism

Hide this page move vandalism from InsidiousCretin. It says ᔮᓂᑫᑫᓈᒦ? (Gypsies are ƿwnƭ by my hūge willy. Also, go to (Redacted) (a mūst sęę).)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=&page=Romani+people&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people&diff=prev&oldid=261464152

It's vulgar and it's spam.

Hide "(Redacted)" on Cher Lloyd's page move logs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Cher+Lloyd

It's highly offensive and abusive. It still redirects to "(Redacted)" on Cher Lloyd's Google results....

Use #RevisionDelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.52.56.115 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:Oversight suppression is the best way to hide offensive page names, so I'll contact them - ordinary Rev Delete can hide edit contents and summaries, but can't hide page move names. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ, so I've revdel'd them. Revdel can't properly hide offensive usernames, but page move vandalism - no problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've redacted parts of this report to help with any Googleness. I can't replicate the reported results, but it seems to have been Google's problem, not ours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks - my mistake, and I'd also misread those edit summaries as being part of the page name. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas

Gravuritas (talk · contribs) was asked not to call other editors "twerps" in 2013[296] and 2016[297]. He's continuing to do so[298]. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DrKay's second pop at me in a few days. have no access other than via an ipad atm, so would like to respond at the weekend

Gravuritas (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can't be accused of being a supporter of DrKay, nor of having any interest in Soviet history (the topic in question), nor of being a hardline civility enforcer, and this looks absolutely clear-cut to me; the thread in question is worth reading in full, in which as best I can tell Gravuritas is arguing for the right to use whatever insulting and belittling language they want because these terms "aren't pejorative or disrespectful in my vocab". As far as I'm can see the only discussion here is whether Gravuritas is blocked outright, or gets a Gravuritas is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If Gravuritas finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. formal topic ban. You're not a new editor; why would you think "twerpikins" would ever be appropriate?

  Wikipedia is a collective enterprise, and someone who isn't capable of grasping the concepts of "other people might disagree with me" and "my personal opinions aren't necessarily representative of consensus" without lashing out isn't welcome here. (That is non-negotiable Wikipedia core policy, not just my personal opinion: In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as “the truth” or “the best view”. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. if you want chapter-and-verse.) In this particular context, what numerous people are trying to explain to you on that talkpage and you're steadfastly ignoring is that while there are numerous historians who consider Lenin a murderous dictator, there are also numerous historians who consider him a visionary leader who did only what was necessary, or who consider him a poor leader in hindsight but no worse than other European leaders of the period, and these points of view need to be given appropriate weight. ‑ Iridescent 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, no response is needed. This sort of childish namecalling is not acceptable here regardless of the circumstances, and I will not hesitate to block User:Gravuritas if there is a repeat performance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC).

• • • @Iridescent: you seem to be taking a stance as to content, which I didn't think was appropriate on this page. If you would like a considered view as to my editing approach on the article, you could review the RfC that I posted there recently: at the very least the results from uncommitted editors show that, on that point as a for instance, there are arguments in favour of the edit that I am proposing. @Lankiveil: The response I would like to make, but cannot until the weekend, is to provide you with a series of diffs. These will show that I have had a series of allegations of bad faith levelled at me by a pair of editors. Each of these allegations is, taken alone, too small to take to ANI, taken altogether, these amount in my view to a worse offence against WP policies than I have committed. That should justify sanctions equal to or greater to mine, on one or more other editors. I am a bit shocked about the 'regardless of circumstances': even murder can have extenuating circumstances and, I suggest, this is not quite a capital offence.
    • Gravuritas (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a content discussion, it's a discussion of your aggressiveness and rudeness. That you appear to think this is a content dispute is an argument against allowing you to remain on Wikipedia in any capacity as opposed to just restricting your methods of interaction with editors with whom you disagree. To be blunt, you give the impression not to be here to improve Wikipedia, but to wage war against it, and that's not something we want here. ‑ Iridescent11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Really? Content? The problem at hand is your abuse of other editors. You should know better. No one is a special case to whom rules of civility do not apply. The simple solution is for you to pledge t stop and then stop.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: I don't care what the other party has done; there are ways to raise issues like that for discussion without resorting to namecalling. There will be no need for sanctions or consequences if you refrain from using that sort of language towards fellow editors in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC).

• On the grounds that Gravuritas, when presented with the option of striking the "twerpikins" insult and/or apologizing, not only refused to do that but went on, apparently, to defend it as a valid tactic to use against his opponents (see user talk page), I see blocks (which should escalate if it continues) as the only real way to prevent this unacceptable approach to interaction. I have, therefore, issued a 31-hour block with a warning of escalation if the (clearly deliberate and calculated) incivility continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Looking back further (at User talk:Gravuritas, at article talk pages, and at various past ANI reports), I see a lengthy history of caustic interactions, incivility, insults and personal attacks from Gravuritas, and I really am surprised that this is their very first block. @Gravuritas: something seriously needs to change in your approach to interaction with other editors, and it needs to change now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Gravuritas has come back to carry on the feud with the editor he called "twerpikins", here, so I have issued a warning to drop it and move on, here. This stick has to be dropped, and I won't hesitate to block again if it is not - other admin eyes on this conduct would be welcome too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Disgusting racist edit summary

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

---

Blemse wrote that here "I can prove very easily that Alföldicus people not only part of a different culture and civilization, but they genetically non-related to other Hungarian population" and he used the following edit summary in Hungarian language: "alsóbbrendű alföldiekről. furcsa idegen kinézetű északra felcsúszott balkáni majom származású populációról", where "furcsa idegen kinézetű felcsúszott balkáni majom származású " means strange alien-looking creeped Balkan monkey.

Also, considering that his first ever edit was a revert, I suspect that Blemse is a WP:Sockpuppet. 123Steller (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@123Steller: Of who? It's really hard to get someone blocked for sockpuppetery without a master. —JJB^ers 23:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• I warned them. Sock of who? Drmies (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like sock of Stubes99 (talk · contribs). According to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Stubes99, Stubes99 edits Hungarian topics and makes racist/xenophobic remarks. If you check the Editor Interaction Analyser, he's got a lot of overlap with a CU-confirmed sock, such as diff1, diff2. I'm going to block based on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am also sure that Blemse is identical with banned user Stubes. Neither Blemse nor Stubes are able to remain civil for a longer period, they always emphasize academic titles to substantiate strange theories and Stubes also hate the Hungarian population of the Great Hungarian Plain, probably because of some unusual personal reasons. However, I do not want to spend time to collect information to prove that the two are one. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Youtubechannel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wrecked_cars belong to the same editor (they edited the same article sections and both used the "minor edit" mark). 123Steller (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Wrecked cars (talk · contribs), but I don't think there's enough evidence to block Youtubechannel (talk · contribs). It's probably safe to leave that one alone until there's more evidence than two edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your promptitude. The case is solved now and I think the thread can be closed. 123Steller (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from User:GreatRAnimator

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

---

Just came across this page in Huggle. Title speaks for itself. Home Lander (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. User indeffed and page deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Covfefe

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVFEFE_Act&action=history - Two accounts for obvious bad contributors, should be banned. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. —Guanaco 22:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I created an account so I could create a new article. Then, the above editor stated he would not accept my new article, on the new proposed law COVFEFE Act, which proposes to expand the Presidential Records Act to include Social Media as archived records in the Presidential Library, since I had "Covfefe" in my name. (I am not sure why.) Per his comment, I created a new account. Please block the old account. I will note that the above editor provided no explanation for why he felt this law was not notable. To involve others in the discussion, I have posted a deletion discussion (or attempted to, I'm not sure I did it correctly.) I made clear to this editor that I had merely chosen a new Username, since he objected to the initial one. As you wish (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:SPAMNAME, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." You're clearly promoting "covfefe", which may not technically be "a company, group, or product", but still falls under the spirit of that rule. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

We're done here, IP has been blocked, Cluebot is not malfunctioning. Carry on. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I corrected a grammar mistake, and ClueBot deleted the whole sentence!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.18.218 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Editor's addition was "You are all ugly!!!" to an article. Cluebot appropriately reverted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked for silly stuff picked up by the edit filter. Everything works just fine. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

TheGracefulSlick

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

---

Let me point out a couple of things about TheGracefulSlick:
(1) their page is indefinitely EAC protected. Let's make it clear, if this were not the case their page would be getting SHOWED right now
(2) they have previously been "convicted" of abusively using more than one account, see: User:ALongStay. It is quite shocking that they have not been "sentenced" to a lengthy ban. 82.132.245.166 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And is that what you are asking for? A ban on this editor? What would be the justification? ...and by the way, you should leave a posting on the editor's talk page letting them know about this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I'm requesting. Please see point (1), I am unable to warn the user. 82.132.245.166 (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

They have been notified. Please continue with your rationale for banning this editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The use of sockpuppets, especially where it concerns the abusive undermining of other contributors, must not be tolerated here. We need to set an example and be consistent with our treatment of editors who break the rules. 82.132.245.166 (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of some sockpuppet(s) that we don't know about? The editor received a one week block last August. Is there something more recent?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• This IP is almost certainly another sock of banned user CrazyAces489, who has been attacking TheGracefulSlick before and ever since he was banned. Suggesting closing this per DENY, and blocking the IP. Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. 82.132.245.166 (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

legal threats

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

---

From User:178.79.73.190 in edit summaries, for example [299]. Reporting here as per advice in the policy. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked them. That is an unambiguous legal threat. ~ GB fan 17:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Brookline College

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

---

User:BrooklineCollege has edited the above article and not responded to talk page notices to declare COI and change their username. Notices were left about a month ago; they returned and edited the article again today. MB 15:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Racist vandalism on the Romani Wikipedia again.

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

---

Hide this racist, abusive, insulting, hateful nasty edit from this IP address 80.217.160.170 Use #RevisionDelete. Watch the Romani Gypsy articles. The edits are highly abusive and harassing on the Gypsy articles. There is even death threats on them.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43938 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.226.22 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) English Wikipedia administrators can't do anything about vandalism at other Wikipedia projects. Normally, vandalism needs to be reported at the Wikipedia version itself (rmy.wikipedia.org in this case), but since it seems to have few active administrators, the best action might be to report it here. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Re: Gurbaksh Chahal

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

---

Hi there, it seems like there has been a lot of trolling to my wikipedia page Gurbaksh Chahal and you have banned it for 1 year. Can you revert this so it can go back to the hands of actual contributors who can fix it from the incorrect information currently on the page which further projects vandalism. The fact you banned it for one-year from editing is just exacerbating the current situation for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbaksh_Chahal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gchahal2017: The page has been protected for one year. That actually is designed to protect the page from trolling or other vandalism: it means that any edits not only must be approved by the community, but also the edits may only be made by administrators. Edits may be requested at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal; make sure you cite independent reliable sources to make a change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred the fact this is an open community. I think having a living person's biography blocked like this for one year is unheard of. Unless this was specifically a hired effort by trolls. This page needs to have the same type of rules as all of wikipedia biographies. Therefore, you need to revert back to make this an open page for contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Gchahal2017 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Gchahal2017

@Gchahal2017: You should discuss that with Primefac, the admin who protected the page. If you're unhappy with the results, then take the matter to WP:RFPP. I don't see any other incident requiring admin action related to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"to my wikipedia page Gurbaksh Chahal"
If this is a autobiography, there might be a serious WP:COI issue here. —JJB^ers 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I certainly would like his explanation for using wikipedia as a media trolling site vs. encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs)

This troublemaker needs to be indeffed per WP:CIR. Despite numerous opportunities to figure it out, this individual still does not understand how Wikipedia works and labels as trolls those of us working to keep the article in compliance with policy. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia and is only interested in giving the article a favorable slant. Please do not unlock the article and allow this POV-pusher to wreak more havoc. Lepricavark (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: This account was only created today. Is there a possible situation with abuse of multiple accounts? —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark We are having a thorough investigation done on your account, IP, etc. and your use of being involved in a paid effort regarding this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs)

You can't possibly be so delusional as to actually think you're going to win. You may have a future as a stand-up comedian because you're downright hilarious. Lepricavark (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark Thank you for admitting you are involved in this paid effort. You will not win legally or on a wikipedia. Gchahal2017 (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)gchahal2017

You apparently have no reading comprehension skills. I never admitted any such thing. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Note: I recall this request having been made before. I agree about WP:COI, Gchahal2017: if you are really the subject, please contact the Volunteer Response Team (WP:VRT) to confirm your identity. You may otherwise be blocked for impersonation (see WP:Blocking policy). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 01:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd bet almost anything this account is being operated by the same individual who was edit-warring on the article as an IP until the page was locked. See Special:Contributions/96.8.1.144 and note that the IP is still blocked. The IP frequently used edit summaries to accuse others of trolling, an accusation repeated by this new account. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I also don't plan on making edits. I had to create my own account today just for the sole reason of getting your attention as you the admins here are useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs)

And how had you tried to contact the admins before? —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC) I saw there one of the top admins on Wikipedia by the name of User:Bhadani who contacted User:Primefac about this very issue. He didn't response. Hence, this is a paid effort to hijack this page with false information. Some of these users associated on this page are part of this paid effort which we have launched a full investigation on. Gchahal2017 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)gchahal2017

It's kinda windy outside. Might need to tighten your tin foil hat. Not everyone engages in paid editing just because you do. Now be a nice little tech CEO and stop beating up your girlfriend. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• SPI case. It needs to stay protected. Support Primefac's protection.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk :Berean Hunter and what basis do you have to come to the conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs)

He has a brain. Lepricavark(talk) 01:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark I doubt you do. So why don't you go troll somewhere else before you get caught.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchahal2017 (talk • contribs) 02:02 June 13 2017 (UTC)

And, as we all knew would happen, the silly troll has been blocked. In his defense, at least he didn't try to be subtle about what he was doing. Some people don't know when they are beaten. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Another sock account confirmed and blocked, too. The IP, I had re-blocked shortly after this thread began because I knew it was him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I misread the IP block entry and thought it was still in place from the last kerfuffle. Thanks for your help. Lepricavark (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I admit I didn't initially see the need for long term full protection. Most of the earlier edits were by IPs with a single edit by an account later which wasn't even blocked until now. But the socking here suggests perhaps it is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I missed the WP:SPI case linked above until now. Seems long term full protection is probably definitely needed. Well I wonder if this is a case where extended confirmed protection may also work but meh I don't care enough to ask in a proper forum. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that all administrators are equal and terming my "top administrator" is not correct. Thank you everyone. --Bhadani (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone close this, it seems like the accounts have been blocked for sock-pupperty, and any more should go into a WP:SPI case. Article situation is also dealt with...with protection. —JJB^ers 15:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

AfD about an article with BLP concerns

Hi. I'd appreciate if an admin would look at this AfD, particularly around the concerns about BLP issues. Disclaimer - I'm involved in the discussion itself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Done SNOW closed as delete. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Video links and WP:LINKVIO reminder

A general reminder, since (whether we like it or not) this is the de facto community noticeboard. I've done a cursory check of some of the YouTube videos linked in that article, and the majority of them were of material subject to copyright quite obviously uploaded by individuals that were not the copyright owners. Please don't add links like that. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Protect the Romani article from page-move vandalism indefinitely....

Hide this random, stupid move ᔮᓂᑫᑫᓈᒦ from InsidiousCretin on the move log. There might be more page-vandalism on the Gypsy article in the future so protect it indefinitely just in case. There is a lot of racism and death threats on the Gypsy articles....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=&page=Romani+people&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1

Again, can't be done from here. Stop asking. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that's our page here at enwiki, so that can be done. However I'm not going to, because it's already been done - it's been fully move-protected for nearly two years. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Coinbase long term vandal

The article was full of spammer by adding personal referral code to Coinbase.com. Just recently blocked 10 socks in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BitcoinFrance (code: 5922d3....). But now appeared with yet another spammer Jugadormta (talk · contribs · logs) with different hash (code: 59383....). As the account was purely spammer, should it be globally lock immediately, as well as the page have increase in protection? Matthew_hk tc 15:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest if it's a long term problem just putting a semi-protect on the page to prevent new users from adding these links. Unless there's anyway for us to blacklist these referral links. If they all contain coinbase.com/join then we should be able to, but I don't know the process to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked and indef semi-protected that article, which is a magnet for sockpuppets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

by inspecting page history, BitcoinFrance, Jugadormta and two ip were involved (identified by different hash). Plus may be more user undiscovered due to add link to other articles (reverted but not reported as external search tool seem clean in other articles currently). May be adding the webpage to the filter would help. But i also saw coinbase.com/about and coinbase.com/global came with ?r=[hash key] after the usual url. Matthew_hk tc 16:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Article is watched, the semiprotection should do well and at least force them to do enough edits to make SPI easier if they come back. If that doesn't work, then I can always do extended protection 30/500 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war with multiple contributors

On 7 June, User:Jebadgirl, a suspected sockpuppet, added some spammy links to the article on Life skills. I removed those the following day. My changes were almost immediately reverted by an anon IP, 117.242.252.215. I undid their change and removed the links again. Another anon IP, 59.92.31.69, reverted them an hour later. I undid that change. A few hours later, guess what? My change was again reverted, this time by 117.213.20.220. Any suggestions as to appropriate action in this case? Deb (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note at the article talk page, which is the place to discuss suitability of external links. The links didn't seem so obviously spammy to me that protection was appropriate, though if the IP editor doesn't start discussing then I guess that's the next step. Per WP:EL, the onus is on them to establish the suitability of the links. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem I see with the links is that they are highly subjective selections. "Life skills" is a very broad subject and some of the links are certainly to commercial organisations. But I'm also concerned about the procedural aspect. The IP is basically suggesting that they can't be socking because they are moving from one IP address to another, but it's pretty clear from their language and their arguments that they have been around a long time and almost certainly have an ID or IDs that they are just not logging into because they want to avoid detection. What's your view on that? Deb (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Jebadgirl created Overcoming Obstacles and Overcoming Obstacles Life Skills Curriculum, both of which were previously deleted. It seems Jebadgirl, who is also probably the IP user, may be spamming life skills stuff on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP by User:Jone Rohne Nester

Good afternoon, please look at this contribution to an AfD discussion by Jone Rohne Nester who is the nominator seeking to delete Abdul Baseer. The comments are largely untrue and an unacceptable breach of WP:CIVIL. If you look at the nomination, you will see that the nominator refers to the subject, who is a living person, in disparaging terms by saying that he is "nothing more than run-of-the-mill" when in fact he is a first-class cricketer and therefore an expert player. He has made the same assertion about Abbas Shah, another first-class player. This is a breach of WP:BLP, perhaps not a serious one but, nevertheless, he cannot be allowed to continue making thoughtless remarks like that without due warning. Therefore, after seeing the Abbas Shah entry, I placed this warning on his talk page.

He responded at the Baseer AfD as above and also a brief remark on his talk page. First of all, reference to "deflationists" (sic) and "small communities" are not name-calling. I had referred to people following deletionist policy and a discussion by a small number of editors at another forum. As for me "fanatically attacking everyone like unleashed dog, blindly ignoring what other editors are saying, It's quit obvious that you are not bringing any sense into this discussion", that is completely untrue and is bang out of order. The rest of his statement is harmless enough apart from its tone but I'm not bothered about that. I strongly object to being called an "unleashed dog" who "fanatically attacks" people because I have opposed his nomination and brought to his attention a point of order about WP:BLP.

I'll leave it to you to discuss. I will place a notice at User talk:Jone Rohne Nester. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to the above I stand by my words 100% and there is no breach of WP:CIVIL whatsoever. "Fanatically attacks" is, in my opinion, the best wording to describe your behaviour towards anyone leaving the comment on that particular AfD and anyone who opposed your opinion. I used "unleashed dog" wording to express and underline your attitude. It's great to have a passion for particular sport, but you should not assume that everyone is feeling the same about sport (in this case cricket). Secondly, your whole Wikipedia presence is about cricket, and obviously you are extremely bias towards it, which , ones again, proves my point that your position is "either you like cricket or else". In fact you are so obsessed about this sport that you can not objectively evaluate point of this discussion - which is that consensus was reached concluding that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Whether you like it or not, whether you think that this consensus is nonsense and was discussed among "too small" and irrelevant group of people , that's a different topic. You are man in denial. And calling others "deletionists" you are just showing how bias you are. I'm here not to offend anyone and I'm against any disruptive behaviour. But I will never back down from my believe that we should discuss things objectively and independently, and make decisions based on logic, facts, guidelines and see things from neutral point of view. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Need I say more? Dearie me. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And responses like this and this are hardly helpful. I think you need to question his attitude. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, this is more of the nonsense due to the current ongoing arguments over if the sporting-specific notability guidelines are far too accepting when compared to WP:N or WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the basis of the problem. It causes a lot of time to be wasted when we constantly see AfD nominations that have no chance of succeeding. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's irrelevant. It's clear from JRN's multiple indiscriminate nominations in direct violation of the RfC that he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I was going to bring it up here, but saw there was already an existing thread on his behavior. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Smartyllama. That is an excellent point so I've amended my previous comment. You are right that he is directly violating the terms of the Village Pump RFC. I hadn't really thought about that before. It certainly is disruptive because of the time people are having to waste. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go on folks from the sports group, lynching is the only way to go Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Or you could try moderating your words and your tone. This is not a schoolyard playground. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The editor has continued his WP:PA and, as Lepricavark says, "playground" behaviour on this page and I am now recommending that WP:BLOCK is effected. Other considerations arise from comments made by a number of experienced editors at each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Dot, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danila Khakhalev and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Shah (qv); and no doubt others. There are valid concerns about breach of WP:AGF and raising indiscriminate nominations in violation of the RfC. The editor is relatively new (600+ edits since Feb 2017) and has evidently appointed himself as an expert on notability but he has invariably been advised and warned to improve his understanding of site procedures before making indiscriminate nominations. He has clearly not heeded such advice and continues to be both disruptive and offensive. I have no actual evidence but I strongly suspect the account is a sockpuppet, probably avoiding a block, as we have seen this sort of attitude and behaviour before among supposed "newbies". Jack | ^{talk page} 06:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between spamming or sockpuppeting and genuine contributions to the community and policy discussions. So far I strongly noted advice by other editors and administrators and used their recommendations to improve my contributions. Yes I strongly believe, as many others, that our sports guidelines are way to lax, but I'm done with involvement in sports discussions as its going nowhere. Lesson learned. And finally, here is why prod the article which caused this discussion: I was working on the list of unreferenced articles and came across that article about cricket player without any references I did research on Google,Google News,Bing, Youtbe etc. I couldn't find anything about him and proposed for deletion. I edited many articles form unsourced BLP (you should check my contribution history) and always improved them if I was able to find sources. If you call this disruptive editing than I have nothing to add to this discussion. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the two cricket articles he PRODed looked like this and this immediately beforehand. Both were created by the same editor and, as you can see, he sourced the infobox data but did not apply an inline citation in the narrative, instead placing his source in the external links section. This is why the articles will have appeared in the unreferenced articles list. Both articles have subsequently been upgraded to comply with standards MOS, CITE, etc. Given, however, that there was a source in each article and it was evident that the original editor had made a pig's ear of it, the response of any concerned reviewer should have been to place attention tags or, better still, correct the mistakes there and then which is what conscientious reviewers do every day. You don't resort to PROD and AfD just because someone has made a mistake. Despite JRN's calmer demeanour in the previous post, I still strongly recommend WP:BLOCK for disruptive and offensive editing, bearing in mind the complaints by several experienced editors at the AfDs given above. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thats not going to happen. Firstly a single external link to a player profile is a not a reliable reference for anything other than 'Player probably exists'. WP:N and WP:GNG require far more than that to pass. Secondly, no admin is going to block based on a good faith prod of a stub of a BLP that had zero references and one external link. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Have you come here to comment on the last two paragraphs only? Please read the whole topic and all the supporting evidence. This is not about two prods; I have no problem with the prods. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued copyvio's

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

---

• Anothervorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – posting of copyrighted images after final warning. Blatant, persistent addition of copyrighted images, also conected issues on Commons, see [300]. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Now also, edit warring. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This account and their sock have been blocked on Commons. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Any appeal should address copyright violations and how behavior will change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Now editing with same sock used on Commons - FlightTime (open channel) 19:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User requested an unblock. Not only are there copyright violations, but the edits were totally inappropriate, too. --Yamla (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Problem wih Israeli people category move

The move of Category:People of Israeli descent to Category:People of Israeli-Jewish descent doesn't look proper. It doesn't make sense because many of the people aren't Jewish, and no provision appears to have been made to actually re-categorize or create new hierarchies. There was no visible discussion prior to the move. Since this is under discretionary sanctions I don't want to just boldly move it back. - Bri (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Bring it to CFD, I guess? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the moves (there was one of American Israelis as well). These should be discussed before being moved as this is not uncontroversial (and as far as I can tell wrong for at least some people). Fram (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PadmanabaReddiar

SPA User:PadmanabaReddiar is writing a draft autobiography User:PadmanabaReddiar/sandbox ‎. It's not clear from the user name that this is an autobiography but comments made in various now-deleted contested speedies made it clear that PadmanabaReddiar is writing about himself. Not being an Admin, I can't tell you which ones. The problem is the repeated creation of various self-serving templates and categories, and the repeated use of them in his draft article.

So far we've seen

• Category:Ammazing World Records Research Achievement speedied, and created under various other names
• Category:Ammazing World Records:Research Achievement speedied at least twice and now at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_12#Category:Ammazing_World_Records:Research_Achievement
• Category:Research Achievement,Ammazing World Records now at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_12#Category:Research_Achievement.2CAmmazing_World_Records
• Category:Sahitya Akademi:Who is Who of Indian Writers speedied and recreated under another name

  Category:Who is Who of Indian Writers(online)/search now at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_12#Category:Who_is_Who_of_Indian_Writers.28online.29.2Fsearch

• Template:P.Chengalvarayan:ResearchGate speedied and recreated under
• Template:P.Chengalvarayan-Publications-ResearchGate speedied
• User:PadmanabaReddiar/Arignar Anna Government Arts College,Cheyyar speedied after being taken to MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PadmanabaReddiar/Arignar Anna Government Arts College,Cheyyar after a 5th blank submission was rejected
• User:PadmanabaReddiar/Academic Administrator another rejected blank article submission (and Category:Academic administrators already exists)

The latest batch, currently all up for speedy are

• Category:Alagappa University Alumni
• Category:Annamalai University Alumni
• Category:Government College of Education, Vellore Alumni
• Category:Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Cheyyar Alumni

Three of those schools barely even have articles, and don't list any notable alumni. Annamalai University does have more of an article, with an alumni list, but Category:Annamalai University alumni already exists.

I may be missing some, but this is enough to get the idea.

User has had multiple warnings, comments, and explanations on his talk page. He has not engaged in discussion on his talk page but is aware of the postings since he has responded several times to simply add his signature (sometimes with a contested speedy header). [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] He previously responded on the talkpages of some of the now-speedied cases.

He ignored a final warning [308] for repeatedly adding cats to his sandbox draft, and not only reapplied them, but used his redundant and improperly capitalized Category:Alagappa University Alumni rather than Category:Annamalai University alumni [309] after he had already been informed of the proper, existing category by User:Oculi [310].

It was suggested in the MFD that the repeated submission of the blank article was WP:TENDENTIOUS. Looking at the repeated attempts to create these templates or cats under various names so that they can be applied to the draft article, and the repeated restoration of the cats to the sandbox article I have to agree. Even if this is a WP:CIR issue, this is disruptive and tendentious editing. Since this could be CIR rather than intentional disruption I'm raising this here rather than at AIV. Meters (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And 10 minutes after being informed of this ANI he recreated Category:Ammazing World Records Research Achievement [311] and Category:Sahitya Akademi:Who is Who of Indian Writers [312] yet again. Meters (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

So, we now have all three variants of the Ammazing World Record cat live, and both variants of the Who is Who cat live. My WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Add a series of blank AfC pages created under User:PadmanabaReddiar/name like User:PadmanabaReddiar/Chengalvarayan has published the following Books:. This guy is WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked as the editor doesn't seem to communicate and instead just continues the disruption. I've deleted some of the stuff, the others that I checked were up for discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Chau Chak Wing

Chau Chak Wing is currently the subject of some controversy in Australian media. [313]. An IP editor and a new user (TheTallGrass, who has made a reversion their one and only edit) are continually removing material, well cited in reliable sources, relating to these claims. Qzd and Home Lander and myself have reinserted them. Seeking some help here as I am sensing this is more than a one-man job.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom (LT) for the note. I've reverted the latest edit and requested semi-protection for the page. I think it's appropriate here. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 4 days. (Not sure where my previous cmt here went). -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, it was lost when Deb posted above in another thread; see my message here. Thanks for protecting the page. Home Lander (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The so-called 'reliable sources' who have reported on this so-called 'controversy' are currently the subject of legal proceeding by Dr ChauChak Wing about the substance of the articles referred to. It is grossly unjust to have untested public references of this type appear on this gentleman's page. The articles cited were rebutted by Chau Chak Wing in a more recent article in The Australian newspaper on 9 June 2017. in the interests of fairness and balance, you must unlock this page to all this rebuttal to be displayed. Clearly the users who have sought to reinstate the smear on this gentleman's character are connected with the media outlets being sued by Dr Chau. There could be no other reason why they would seek to publicly besmirch his reputation. I request the page be unlocked for editing immediately to allow for some balance to be added to these grubby attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTallGrass (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

TheTallGrass, the content you are attempting to remove is adequately sourced, and furthermore, you seem to have a very obvious WP:COI with the subject of the article. Therefore, your content removal has been deemed disruptive, and the page has been protected. Home Lander (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Home Lander. It appears to me this content is adequately sourced. An appropriate response, TheTallGrass, would be to propose (on the article's talk page) a change that includes Chau Chak's rebuttal, with an adequate source. Removal of verifiable information is not what we do around here. I am sure you understand this, as your one and only edit, a reversal of another's addition, shows some familiarity with Wikipedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see Tom (LT), what you do around here is allow people with agendas to smear the reputation of others with biased bios designed for use in court proceedings that Home Lander is clearly involved in. Otherwise there would be no reason to reference these two articles, both riddled with inaccuracies, and neglect the many supportive and well documented character references that this man has from people such as former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard. And I don't really think your patronising tone is a great way to encourage new contributors with an interest in fairness and accuracy. HomeLander should declare their conflict of interest in this matter - there is no other reason they would even have an interest in this man. Again, in the interests of fairness I ask that you release the page for editing so there can be some balance added to his disgraceful bit of character assassination. I assure you all references will be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTallGrass (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, TheTallGrass, based on your IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance, you are NOTHERE to improve this encyclopedia. I'll be the first therefore, to propose an indefinite block here. Home Lander (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations after four warnings

Sparkyscience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to violate our copyright policy even after receiving four warnings [314][315][316][317].

This morning, I spent a substantial amount of time researching copyright violations at RF resonant cavity thruster with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, removing the violations that were unambiguous, and rewording some close paraphrasing. I left a warning at 14:48 and removed additional copyrighted text 15:03, somme of which was slightly reworded and reinstated at 15:22 by Sparkyscience.

Here is what I removed:

"For example, there are no measurements of temperature over time compared to the thrust stand’s deflection to justify the model. The paper includes a graphical chart but it is based an a priori assumption on what the shapes of both the “impulsive thrust” and "thermal effects" should be and how those signals will superimpose."

Here is what Sparkyscience added, after being warned:

"For example, they do not provide data on temperature measurement over time compared to the device's displacement. The paper includes a graphical chart but it is based an a priori assumption on what the shapes of both the “impulsive thrust” and "thermal effects" should be and how those signals will superimpose"

Here is what is written in the source:

"They assume a priori the shapes of both the “impulsive thrust” (their device) and thermal effects and how those signals will superimpose."
...
"For example, there are no measurements of temperature over time compared to the thrust stand’s deflection. Such measurements should have been made during operation of the device and when running power through a dummy load."
— Centauri Dreams

I suspect that there may be other copyright violations in the text that has been added to the article, but I don't have access to several of the sources. There is also an ongoing problem with how Sparkyscience adds original research to this article, and they tend to edit war when it is removed. For now though, the immediate issue is the continuing copyright violations.- MrX 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the removed copyright violations i.e. [318] have nothing to do with me but other editors. I do admit to the above paraphrasing - but the source is cited and it is attributed as the author's PoV by inline citation. I don't know another word unfortunately for "a priori" and the terminology of "impulsive thrust” "thermal effects" and "superposition" are labels in a graph which would be hard to avoid. There doesn't seem to be a black and white divide as to where the line is with paraphrasing, at least from a legal standpoint. I am trying to make constructive edits to the article and avoid copyright violations. I do feel MrX seems to a have a bit of a vendetta at the moment due to a conversation on the talk page [319].--Sparkyscience (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is another less egregious example, again after the fourth warning:

Source content:

"While peer review doesn’t guarantee that a finding or observation is valid, it does indicate that at least a few independent scientists looked over the experimental setup, results, and interpretation and found it all to be reasonable."
— [320]

I removed this from the article:

" Peer review doesn’t guarantee that a finding or observation is valid, but it does indicate the referees looked over the experimental setup, results, and interpretation and found it all to be reasonable."

Sparkyscience added this back into the article:

" Peer review does not mean the results or observations are true, only that the referees looked at the experiment, results and interpetation and found it to be sound and sensible."

At best, this is close paraphrasing.- MrX 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I must admit that when there is a limited number of ways of saying the same thing, I struggle. Apologies for doing it. Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing it is the first time I have seen it.--Sparkyscience (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may, I will offer some advice, because I am sympathetic to the fact that in technical discussions there are terms of art, and changing them might inadvertently change the information content. In the ideal situation, you will have more than one source but I recognize this is not always the case. This advice just works better when there are multiple sources. After reading the source(s), Step away from them and come back a couple minutes later and write the sentence in your own words. You will then have to return to the source because you may find you botched a technical term and need to fix it, but you will be amazed at how much difference there is between your wording in the source's. I recall a discussion (but didn't save the link) where someone complained that they were only so many ways to phrase a particular issue, and an editor came back with a dozen different ways to say the same thing that were not close to the original. It can be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you that is excellent advice Sphilbrick.--Sparkyscience (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Military college dispute getting out of hand

Two editors seem to be locked in a struggle to the death over The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina‎. I have previously mentioned one of those editors, User:Bob80q, for ownership of a related article, but things have not improved. On one side of a dispute that seems to center on including a picture of a class ring (really) is Bob80q and a number of IPs that I assume are also him. On the other side is User:Strgzr1. I had started a WP:3RR report due to the relentless edit-warring but discovered that an admin was already involved. The situation did not improve. Now I see that Strgzr1 has uploaded a [new image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citadel_Civilian_Ring.jpg] to Commons which he claims is his own work but is actually a collage of existing images taken from the website of the alumni association. I think it is time to topic ban both of these editors from military college related articles, or at least this one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who asked the admin to get involved. Also, I took the picture and it is my work. I uploaded the image to complement the cadet ring image which was already on the site but was removed (mysteriously at the same time Bob was opposing any ring pics other than a cadet ring...).Strgzr1 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please block Strgzr1? The picture which he took "picture on my dining room table and it is my work" is an obvious composite of the orginal source. I'm not sure what the game is here, but I've seen enough. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Block me for posting a picture which is clearly my work with my camera of a ring? ...Doesn't quite make sense, as posting this picture alongside the cadet ring tells the whole story and provides an accurate site picture of both rings. Lamest Critic, your biased comments do nothing to solve the issue here and would appreciate it if you could kindly stop mentioning a ban except where it applies (as is the case with Bob). Take a look at the history...Strgzr1 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thr latest picture was brought to an Admin on Commons by me because I thought it was the same image deletted before. The admin who had deleted it said the rings were shot from the same scope but were taken by different cameras. It is up for deletion due to the design on the rings not being in the public domain. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support – this has gone on long enough. The two editors will never agree and will continue to blame the other for something. It started with the Citadel articles and has now expanded to other articles such as the Virginia Military Institute. It is time for the two users above to move on from these articles and try to be productive elsewhere on Wikipedia. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I agree as well, having seen this dispute over the past 2 years, despite attempts to mediate, separate the arguments, and remove emotions/agendas. Each editor involved (I agree with the conclusion that the IPs are Bob80q while not logged in) has his own agenda and has not moved appreciably in the disagreement. The argument over The Citadel's ring and its images is just one manifestation of a broader dispute, with one seeking to minimize the existence of civilian programs at The Citadel (and sometimes attempting to own subject pages) while the other tries to shine an undue spotlight on them, particularly as a contrast to rival VMI. Other articles affected include Military Classic of the South and sections of United States Senior Military College, Academic honor code, and Cadet Honor Code. I recommend all of these pages be included in the topic ban. I note that another IP (User:69.1.22.120) was blocked in 2015 for 3 years for very similar behavior. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

First some background regarding this post. Editor “Worlds Lamest Critic” (WLC) recently had added someone to the article “List of alumni of The Citadel”, this person is a 2014 grad nominated for a mid level job at the State Department and was once accused of sexual assault although the charges were dropped and the accusers later admitted to lying. I deleted the entry because it was clearly not ‘notable’ and the motivation seemed questionable, WLC has no connection to the school and has not ever edited this article before; WLC then appealed this deletion and was overruled by another editor who agreed it was not appropriate. WLC then promptly deleted every entry in the article that does not have a wiki article claiming its a rule in order to be considered ‘notable’, when I pointed out this is not true he then essentially said ‘I will decide who should be on the list’, I then requested that he recuse himself from any oversight of the article for obvious conflict of interest, his response was “you wouldn’t know what conflict of interest is” and then ignored my objections by simply referring me back to the wiki guidelines on people.
It is a clear and obvious conflict for him to have any involvement with this article and his actions are apparently vindictive. Now he states that I should be “blocked from any involvement with college related articles”, I guess that includes the aforementioned article on Citadel alumni; kinda sounds like a further effort to get back at me which is clearly inappropriate, unprofessional and shows clear bias. Furthermore he has had no involvement in the main article on The Citadel so why is he now concerned about other issues like edit warring; highly suspicious IMHO.
Worlds Lamest Critic must be blocked from any involvement in the article “List of alumni of The Citadel” and others appointed who can be objective and unbiased.
As for the issue of edit warring in my case it is a matter of defending the article from highly questionable edits from someone with highly questionable motives, as previously mentioned strgzr deleted a photo of the cadet ring and replaced it with a picture of a non cadet ring, its all part of a clear agenda he is pushing that “The Citadel isn’t a real military college because it has civilian students”. He claims to be interested in accuracy yet has repeated made edits that are either false or misleading and not supported by references; he violates the rule on neutral tone and exaggeration by putting in statements like “robust and growing civilian programs”; he put in a statement about class profile so he could highlight the number of civilian graduates which was deleted by a wiki editor for being inappropriate and irrelevant, I could go on an on with other examples but if you look closely at his edit history there is an unmistakable and highly suspicious pattern. I know who this person is because he has been conducting this same campaign of lies and disinformation on a website called United States of America Service Academy Forums, he goes by several aliases including ‘NAS’ and ‘Repatriot’, he has been banned at least half a dozen times for inappropriate posts; as I have stated on the talk pages he seems to have some intense hatred toward The Citadel and is engaging in not only an extended vendetta but is also playing some twisted game with people to show how clever he is. I have pleaded repeatedly with editors to try to see what is happening but to no avail, out of fairness and objectivity this issue should be reviewed by a panel of editors with no previous involvement in the article who can undertake a fair and impartial review of the situation. While some of my repeated deletions may not have been appropriate I had no other choice and was the only person concerned about the actions of strgzr; I will refrain from further edits until this situation is resolved. And for the record I have had no involvement with any articles other than ‘The Citadel’ and ‘The Military Classic of the South’Bob80q (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Applying our guidelines to this article is hardly grounds for banning someone. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

uh, read my comments again; he is applying a guideline that DOES NOT exist. Guidelines DO NOT require someone to have a wiki article to be considered 'notable', his deletions and request to block me also clearly appear to be vindictive but I guess that's acceptable if you are a wiki editor.Bob80q (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that both you and Strgzr1 be topic banned from military college articles. You could still edit military articles or articles about fish or geometry or whatever else you want. I haven't requested that you be blocked. The guideline that applies here is WP:LISTPEOPLE. And you are a Wikipedia editor, too. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When I commented in December 2015 at Talk:Virginia Military Institute#This marks the only time in U.S. history..., about the behavior of multiple editors there, this little gem stood out. Call it old news or useful background as you will, but, as seen in their comments above, the last sentence of the first paragraph at WP:EW is clearly lost on Bob80q. I have no experience with the username Strgzr1, and that individual may or may not have been one of the IPs involved in the VMI EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sad to see this goes back even further than I'd realized. Billcasey905 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, I requested admin involvement to help here. Agreed, I'm also sad to see this goes back as long as it does, but not surprised. And the "little gem" comment above is a perfect example of the tones, insults, and edit wars that Bob has been involved with in the past. Bob has a history of being way off base and lashing out and being belligerent. I've looked back at the histories, but obviously didn't see half of what Bob has been doing. I've not been here long enough to have conflicts and I sure don't want this to continue! I've never had any problems except with Bob and I would like to keep editing in as much of a collaborative manner as possible. My edit history shows the collaborative approach and efforts I've made with others here (aside from Bob or any of his alias IPs)... To the point: ALL my edits are referenced and cited, but Bob keeps deleting due to his obvious alma mater bias. At this point I strongly urge action to be taken against Bob... Billcasey, while also a citadel grad like Bob, has always been collaborative and even if we've disagreed, we've made the articles better for the collaboration. For the record, don't care either way, just want accuracy, whether its the citadel or east johnson middle school. Appreciate any and all help.Strgzr1 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support for User:Bob80q. The incivility alone is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It has gone on way too long and Bob's vast history of out of line behavior and "ownership of articles" along with malicious edits does nothing positive for Wiki. Time for him to go.Strgzr1 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support for both. The copyright infringement is worthy of a block, but topic banning both will solve lots of problems, as long as it is a ban against all things related to the Citadel, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic banning both doesn't seem quite right. Bob80q, yes... both, no. Again, please take a look at the history here... Strgzr1 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not helping your own case by replying to every editor who votes. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Менде Фёдор

User:Менде Фёдор, having just come off of a 48 hour block for 3RR and spamming, went right back to edit warring the same material into the same article.[321][322] Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive344#User:Менде Фёдор reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: 48 hours) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for re-starting the edit warring without attempting discussion. El_C 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Nar275 copyright violations

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

---

Nar275 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has repeatedly created articles in violation of copyrights, and shows no signs of acknowledging the posts on their talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked. [323] WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Darunia02

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

---

The user was blocked for two days in February for vandalism dating back to July 2016, and then again in March for one month. Since then Darunia02 has made disruptive edits to Once Upon a Time in America, for which they were warned by User:Gareth Griffith-Jones. In May, a warning was submitted by User:TheOldJacobite for disruptive edits made by the user to The Godfather Part II. Today they frivolously moved Resident Evil 7: Biohazard. Being blocked for a month changed nothing. –Cognissonance (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because the biohazard in Resident Evil 7 is written is lowercase and Godfather is predominantly a drama film. Darunia02 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is, you don't get to make those kind of arbitrary decisions. And, after having done so, and being reverted and warned, you then turn around and do it again, with no explanation, what are we to assume other than that your intention is to be disruptive? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember this editor – Darunia02 blanked an entire deletion discussion when it didn't go the desired way. Given that the disruption apparently hasn't stopped (including genre warring and blanking sources), I'm leaning toward an indefinite block for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Long term self promo - block needed

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

---

Could someone please block User:Anthony Offu. MA, PhD.? While this may seem like a malformed but honest G13 refund attempt, this user has apparently been tendentiously trying to get his autobiography published for a long time. Also see: Draft:Anthony Kenechukwu Offu, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dr. Anthony Kenechukwu Offu, User:DR. ANTHONY KENECHUKWU OFFU., User talk:Alabious341911, User talk:74.73.9.88, User talk:24.45.233.91, and User talk:24.45.237.85. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:CIR issue. I find it hard to believe someone with a PhD is that confused. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You want to hear some stories? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

• Dr. Anthony Jones Okafor Offu. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr. Anthony Jones Okafor Offu. (PhD) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr. Anthony O. Offu. PhD. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr. Anthony Offu. MA, PhD. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DR. ANTHONY KENECHUKWU OFFU. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anthony Offu. MA, PhD. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anthony Offu. PhD. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alabious341911 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

..and a couple of previous draft attempts..

• Draft:Anthony Offu-MA, PhD-Article Live Biography for Professional Conultant
• Draft:Dr. Anthony Kenechukwu Offu-Article Live Biography

Salt time?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

His LinkedIn profile is here and is the proper place for this sort of thing. This isn't the first time that I've come across a person who thought that Wikipedia should be a vanity press for their LinkedIn profile. There is now an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because it has been explained repeatedly that Wikipedia cannot be used in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm thinking we might just need to block and clean up. I don't think they are ever going to get it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with Dennis. We have blatant self-promotion, abusing multiple accounts, and a very serious dearth of AGF at User talk:Dr. Anthony Jones Okafor Offu.. There is no indication anything constructive will come of any of this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• I filed the SPI case and have indeffed all accounts.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

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

---

Short: Morty C-137 engages in POV-pushing in various articles, particularly those of interest to American conservatives. When this is questioned he personally attacks other editors, engagee in edit-warring, accuses others of harassment without evidence and generally engages in battleground behaviour. This behaviour has made collaborative work impossible in articles he edits in.

Long:

Morty C-137 is constantly engaged in edit warring behaviour. On Bill Nye Saves the World Morty C-1337 attempted to remove negative elements from an article on a TV show which has been targeted by conservatives: [324], [325]

When Morty C-137’s edits are undone, his immediate response is to revert back:

• First edit: [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335]

Anarcho-authoritarian requested a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard: [336] and volunteer KDS4444 invited Morty C-137 to participate. In response, Morty C-137 accused Anarcho-Authoritarian of dishonesty and bullying, refused to participate in dispute resolution unless Anarcho-Authoritarian apologised to him for questioning their competence, accused KDS4444 of trying to “force, shame, coerce, or otherwise manipulate” them into participating, and finally accused KDS4444 of bullying. Morty C-137 was warned for edit warring by NinjaRobotPirate and later received a formal warning for edit warring from El_C. Morty C-137 dismissed the warnings as “nothing but harassment by KDS4444” and accused him of partiality in his volunteering on the dispute resolution noticeboard. He further accused KDS4444 of launching a “full harassment campaign” and being dishonest.

Their POV-pushing and immediate “revert back” response can be seen at Alternative Medicine: [337], [338] - where he also accused Clean Copy of lying .

And also at Twelve-step program: [339], [340]

This behaviour can also be seen at United Daughters of the Confederacy:

Morty made a series of edits asserting that this group was “closely associated with the KKK”. [341] [342] [343] Rjensen reverted this and explained that he did so because there was no RS supporting this claim and that the KKK and the UDC did not exist at the same time: [344] Morty responded by accusing Rjensen of misrepresenting the sources, suggesting that Rjensen is “woefully mistaken or uninformed with regard to history” and editing User:Rjensen’s post on the talk page: [345] Further, he accused Rjensen of having "some form of emotional attachment to protecting the UDC and KKK": [346] [347] On the talk page Morty C-137 engaged in extremely uncivil behaviour and personally attacked multiple editors: “the writers ‘ARE FUCKING EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD SPECIFICALLY’” [348] “I'm going to go with actual experts over RJensen, whose key method of argument seems to oscillate between shouting "me me" and name-dropping who he worked with in unrelated fields, assuming he is even who he claims to be.”: [349] “he’s been both rude and arrogant”: [350] Rjensen “is too dumb to actually read a website's front page to understand that yes, it's affiliated with the Winter Institute” and has “no clue about history”: [351] He refused to provide evidence for claims he’s edit-warring to include and accused of me of stalking: [352] repeatedly: [353].

When a previously uninvolved editor, SamHolt6 tells Morty C-137 that the sources do not back up his claims, he accused him of enabling my “wikihounding behaviour” and repeats the personal attack against Rjensen, that he is “woefully misinformed or uninformed”: [354] He then accused me of being Rjensen’s “edit warrior stooge”, and describes Rjensen as being incapable of dealing in or uninterested in facts: [355] [356] The page got locked for edit warring, and Morty accused everyone of dishonesty for not continuing to engage with him: [357] and accused everyone of acting in bad faith, saying “I posted quotes and you all went fucking silent after Cjhard's hounding ploy and deliberate attempt to start an edit war. Excuse me if the limits of my "assume good faith" have been stretched to the fucking breaking point watching that dumb game-playing go on and being forced to sit and wait to see if even one of you is actually operating in good faith. I see now that you aren't.” [358] Later that day he tried to advocate for contentious negative material to be included in Richard J. Jensen, the article on Rjensen: [359]

His edit warring on this UDC-KKK issue: [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365] – also accused me of stalking him. [366] – also accused me of wikihounding. [367]

Most recently, he also made this edit describing the Lost Cause movement as “white supremacist”. I removed this description, citing WP:NPOV: [368]. Morty C-137 reverted this, describing the edit as “not productive or helpful”. In response, I attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page, explaining the reasons for my reversion: [369]. This was rebuffed by Morty C-137, who described it as a “bad faith attempt to start a fight”: [370] and denied having to justify his edit: [[371]]. After waiting four days for a response from him, I undid the edit citing his lack of response regarding the problems I raised: [372]. He reverted again, accusing me of lying about his lack of response: [[373]] When I asked him to stop accusing people of lying and to address the issues I raised: [374] he merely deleted it, describing it as “inappropriate behaviour”: [375] He then accused some random IP address (IP: 2.102.184.54) of being my sockpuppet: [376]

Accusations of harassment:

As seen above Morty has repeatedly alleged that I am stalking him without any evidence. He engaged in admin shopping, accusing me of sockpuppetry and stalking to admin NeilN: [377] [378] as well as accusing me of wikihounding to admin MelanieN: [379] and admin Berean Hunter: [380]. When I made an SPI request regarding Morty C-137 which was seconded by MelanieN: [[381]] Morty C-137 repeated the accusation of wikihounding: [382] and accused me of orchestrating the sockpuppet to harass him: [383]. In response, I left him a message asking him to stop accusing me of wikihounding and to file a report if he sincerely believed that I was wikihounding him: [384] He deleted this, calling it “passive aggressive BS”: [385] and again accused me of wikihounding to NeilN: [386] and again: [387] He also interjected in a completely unrelated SPI request I had made, once again accusing me of sockpuppeting: [388]

Personal attack tally:

• Accused Scarpy of lying: [389]
• Accused Clean Copy of lying: [390]
• Accused KDS4444 of bullying, partiality, dishonesty and harassment (as seen above): [391] [392][393] [394]
• Accused Rjensen of bias and stupidity (as seen above). [395] [396]
• Accused Anarcho-authoritarian of bullying (as seen above): [397]
• Accused User:Seraphim System of bias [398] “Seraphim is more interested in a very particular POV and has an axe to grind against any journalistic outlet that they disagree with” [399] which Seraphim System had to ask repeatedly for him to stop: [400] [401] [402]

Cjhard (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 repeated the accusation of wikihounding

Based on this report, I have to ask: gee, I wonder why? --Calton | Talk 01:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been followed article-to-article by this person, who has been deliberately following me to pages they have never before edited (unless of course, Cjhard is logging out and editing as an IP in order to hide their edits). In at least one case, they expressly stated an intent to edit-war by reverting to the preferred version of a D.H.110 sockpuppet ("Heroin123") following the block of same.

Moreso, Cjhard has massively misrepresented almost everything they are posting here - that is, those links of theirs that aren't plain old deadlinks that don't even go anywhere, since half of what they list as accusations of me go to blank difference pages similar to this url: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KDS4444&diff=prev&oldid=780532213%7C. The D.H.110 sockpuppets ALSO have decided that I was to be targeted on multiple occasions, and have engaged in similar stalking behavior (in fact, Cjhard seems to have deliberately followed Heroin123 to find a page on which to attack me).

I shouldn't have to put up with the kind of harassment Cjhard seems to want to throw at me. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Formatting errors in links have been fixed. Cjhard (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The first time I ever crossed paths with Cjhard, he was reverting to Cdg428, a sockpuppet of D.H.110 who I had asked to discuss their edit. There was a weird exchange between Cjhard, Pepe.is.great (another D.H.110 sockpuppet confirmed) and Cdg428. Links: "Pepe.is.great" inserts wording "online newspaper" that had been removed by Cjhard, Cdg428 removes the word "conservative" with a summary "If you're not going to label the liberal ones don't label the conservatives; shows your bias"; I reverted the Cdg428 sockpuppet's edit and asked them to discuss on talk page [403], which is when Cjhard jumped back in reverting to Cdg428 (D.H.110 sockpuppet) with the edit summary "This page isn't yours to police.".

Cjhard later followed me to a page he had never edited before and again reverted to a sockpuppet of D.H.110[404]; Heroin123/D.H.110 had stalked me to that page just a day before for the purpose of harassing me.

This has continued a few more times, and Cjhard has made it very clear to me that their goal is to try to provoke me into an edit war, very similar to what the Heroin123 sockpuppet did. Having failed to do that now, they appear to have created this report in order to needle me or provoke me. There are also large blank spots in their editing history (note the jump from June 2012 to May 2017 and subsequent jumping in quickly to interaction with the D.H.110 sockpuppets). Morty C-137 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calton Based on this report, I have to ask: gee, I wonder why?

Be careful, that is the kind of thing that Cjhard considers a personal attack. He Cjhard has also accused me of personal attacks (as well as being a sockpuppet when someone else disagreed with him) - and while I have been told many times by many people that the nice things I say in the real world comes across as rude online, I have read our conversation and do not see what could even be misconstrued as a personal attack.

In addition, I am going to say, take his Cjhard's report with a grain of salt - less then half of his Cjhard's edits have been to articles. The rest have been to talk and incident pages. Kellymoat (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

In my interaction with Morty C-137, he made many personal comments, and he was eventually asked to stop by MelanieN, however the personal comments continued. It seems this has now become an issue across multiple articles. He was warned by El_C for violating 3RR, but claimed the complaint was "harassment." Personally, I stopped working on OathKeepers for a time, in the hopes that I could go back to it once Morty had moved on to other things. He has been allowed some leniency as a new editor, but it seems like a pattern of disruptive editing on a particular topic. Given the number of editors involved and that and the disruptive pattern of personal comments, of which there is ample evidence in this complaint, is it too soon to consider a TBAN? Looking back over the complaint it seems to be two articles about conservatism, and a few unrelated articles, so while a TBAN might be premature, a strong warning about personal attacks is definitely warranted. Even leaving aside the comments made to User:Cjhard, I can attest that many personal comments were made during my discussions with him, and I found the comments made to User:Rjensen calling him "dumb" etc. to certainly cross the line. The quantity of these comments is enough to estbalish a behavior pattern that justifies some kind of admin intervention. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I must point out that the claim made - that I made a personal comment by questioning Seraphim's POV - is once again a gross misrepresentation. I questioned it because Seraphim specifically attacked known reliable sources such as the Washington Post and made comments alluding to their belief in a conspiracy theory that government agents were burning down buildings to steal land, and in each instance I made it plain that it was those comments that were the basis for my question. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why, you are not allowed to make personal attacks becuase you in a content dispute. The fact that you disagree with an editor does not allow you to call them "dumb" or say they are "living in an alternate dreamworld" or call their comments "tin foil hat stuff." This post shows that you do not understand that, despite repeated warnings. Further, I was discussing a report in Vice News, not a conspiracy theory, and Vice confirmed through its sources that miner cabins used to be burned routinely, and spoke with miners to confirm that this is what they were afraid of. In each instance you made it clear that you were not responding to comments about sources and were instead resorting to personal attacks. Your post here only shows that you are willing to continue making personal attacks, even in an AN/I discussion about your pattern of making personal attacks, and that your understanding of WP policy is that it does not apply to you as long as you believe you are right in a content dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You're misrepesenting again. My questioning of your POV issues has to do with comments you made like "because WaPo has recently decided to swiftboat them". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you still don't understand that a content dispute does not make personal attacks ok is a pretty good indication that you should be blocked. It wasn't just this one comment "questioning POV issues", or this one time, and it wasn't just one editor. There are your comments to Rjensen, and Scrapy, and other editors. You were warned by MelanieN, and still continued. If there isn't enough evidence here in complaint, then I can certainly provide more diffs. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• [405] here your comment is not limited to discussing POV or WaPo, it goes on to speculate on my undisclosed political views and overall competence, saying I lived in "an alternate world" because I get all my information from Breitbart (I don't), and misrepresenting a quote, which I never said.
• [406] calling editors comments "bullshit"
• [407]
• [408] callling editors comments nonsense

You don't seem to be able to distnguish between making civil comments about the sources, and comments that cross the line to being insulting, perjorative, and about the editor. The same pattern can be seen in your interaction with Rjensen posted above. You continue to insist it was a legitimate comment about a WaPo article — it was not, it was a comment about me. If you were responding to my comment you would have responded to the Harvard Study, or the issue that different WaPo articles used different terminology, you did not, and you are still trying to justify it here, even though other editors have also commented that they don't think your discussion style is suitable for Wikipedia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And when I said "swiftboating" that is what I meant—it's a political tactic where you smear a candidate or organization when their patriotism becomes inconvienient. FoxNews did it to Cindy Sheehan. And it's no surprise that anti-trump outlets would take a sudden interest in OathKeepers, an orgnanization they ignored entirely throughout the entire 2012 election. And yes, WaPo has been noted for its bias, in a Harvard study. I explained numerous times on talk that I was concerned about a Wikipedia article reflecting what might be a WP:RECENT smear campaign against an organization that is at least in part made up of veterans of the Iraq War, and I further noted that even the press reports have used a wide variety of terminology, and especially the local press has consistently referred to them as constitutionalist, so that it would be a violation of NPOV to somehow give "National Media" greater weight, when the much repeated statement can only be sourced to two advocacy organizations. This is a content dispute, and if even what I had said had been as stupid as you are trying to make it sound, it would not mean that making uncivil and derogatory comments is ok. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this proves my point well - you're suggesting once again that we ignore the consensus of reliable sources because you allege a media conspiracy (e.g. conspiracy theory) regarding a fringe group. That seems to clearly be POV pushing on behalf of that group. And I consistently responded to the comments you made in that regard. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the formatting so the information is actually usable. This isn't Arb, please keep the diffs linear so we can see the whole complaint in one page. I would note that it takes TWO to edit war, although briefly looking, I see Morty has been an army of one on at least some of these articles. You're new Morty, and you aren't winning any friends acting like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Observation -- I looked at one of the articles in question (United Daughters of the Confederacy), and I could see some whiffs of historical distortions present in the article. For example, the section Purpose cited, verbatim, a lengthy paragraph from the organisation itself, describing its work as "collecting and preserving the material for a truthful history" of the South, with helpful piping of the so-called War Between the States to the American Civil War. Instead of fighting, it might be better to focus on improving the article. Compare with the topic of the org's goals cited to a 3rd party source: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit or source as long as it's represented properly; I've extended it slightly to make sure we don't misrepresent DuRocher. I want to make it clear here - I am happy to work with anyone provided they are not deliberately and dishonestly targeting me or hounding me. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is even better: diff. Compare to the flowery language about the Southern women's "patriotic devotion during the struggle for independence" etc etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment -- I've edited the article in question some more and I've observed that it contained (still does) much self-cited trivia & apologia, while skimming over things the org is actually notable for. In summary, it would fit into the narrative of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy quite nicely. I did not take part in the disputes on the Talk page, but I I would challenge the established editors to have another look at the article and work on improving it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been pinged here so I'll respond briefly. My warning that has been mentioned can be seen at User talk:Morty C-137#Followup, dated June 5-6. In responding to an RfPP request, I had looked at an article he was editing, United Daughters of the Confederacy. I found an edit war going on between Morty on one side and three or four other users on the other side - plus another account later revealed to be a sock of a blocked fifth party. I fully protected the article to stop the edit warring, and seeing that Morty was the only one in danger of an edit-warring block, I posted on his talk page. I cautioned him against edit warring (he was gaming the system: three reverts one day, three reverts the next day) and also personal attacks (I included an extensive, hatted list of examples). Of interest besides those two issues is his response: He didn't respond at all to what I was saying about his behavior. Not at all. All he would do, again and again, is complain about "wikihounding" and "harassment" by Cjhard. I tried to explain that even if true, that would not justify edit warring nor personal attacks against everyone who disagreed with him, but I did not feel that I had gotten through to him. I know that he took his wikihounding complaint to several other admins as well. I haven't followed his behavior since then, nor have I monitored Cjhard's posts, so I have no opinion on whether the wikihounding accusation is valid or not. Cjhard has now filed an ANI complaint, which may be another example of wikihounding, or may be a valid complaint against Morty for continuing a pattern of edit warring and making personal attacks. I will leave that decision up to the regulars here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification: Dennis Brown, you closed the section on the personal attacks against KDS4444, Clean Copy, Rjensen, and Anarcho-authoritarian for lack of diffs, however the diffs are provided earlier in the report. For clarity:<moved to above by db now that it is properly diff'ed> Cjhard (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved into place. You have to do all this inline, you can't expect others to simply memorize all this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Cjhard (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have given Morty a warning for personal attacks a few weeks ago, but have not followed up on anything since. El_C 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• I had written a beautiful piece of prose, breathtaking really, covering how it was possible to have one last chance, but I edit conflicted with El C, which is fortunate as now I'm considering other actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked one week. The disruptive behavior seems to permeate everything he does, enough that I think only a week block will possibly stop the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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