Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966

User:MjolnirPants using right-wing biased source on BLP, being stubborn

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 on Alex Jones (radio host) says that he has been alleged to be a "pro-Russia propagandist". The source for this is Accuracy in Media. Accuracy in Media is, if you read the article on them which MjolnirPants hasn't done, a right-wing think tank which shares many of the same conservative biases as Jones, believing that news is a liberal conspiracy, climate change is fake and the UN is bad.

A source like this would never be used to make allegations about anybody else. MjolnirPants, a self-confessed "skeptical liberal atheist feminist American gun nut SJW" would be the first to revert if I put any of AIM's allegations about Hillary Clinton on the article about her, as he should do. Why are right-wing biased sources acceptable for BLP when they are attacking another right-wing person?

Please read the article and the sources on AIM, then look at their website and tell me this isn't a biased conservative site. MjolnirPants just says "no, they're not" and continually reverts. His failure to research and check sources suggests WP:COMPETENCE issues or maybe he wants Jones to look bad by any means necessary. Also Slatersteven has been twisting my words as a strawman on the discussion page. I mentioned that AIM is outrageously conservative, so much so that they think Fox is left-wing. He said that I said that Fox calls AIM left-wing and that by extension I'm just another of the right-wing hit-and-run editors trying to overly sanitise this page.

So in short, an unreliable source being used for a negative claim about a living person, refusal to cooperate and communicate. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] [2] This is the guy MjolnirPants thinks is a reliable source for a BLP. Laughable. I won't make a WP:POINT but what would you do if this group's smears of liberals were added to their articles? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

<grabs the popcorn> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How childish of you. You think an org run by this guy is a reliable source for a massive claim on a BLP? You can not be serious Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake (which I have accepted). This is not the place to discus the sources status as an RS, that is RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not discussing the source. I am discussing a stubborn lack of communication by a user who refuses to listen or co-operate or provide any justification for his edits other than "no it's not (a right-wing source)", which is patently false as substantiated by reliable sources. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As to competence, have you informed either me or Pants (in the correct manner) about this, or did we have to stumble over it buy accident?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also can you provide a link to his comment about them not being right wing?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I tagged MP, not you because I only mentioned your contribution as part of the summary, not reporting you Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[3] who cares about years of research by the SPLC, the all-knowing MjolnirPants knows this is not a right-wing biased source because he said so Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It reads like you complained about me.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Per above, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so." Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground for people to revert just because they say so and imagine that sources are what they want them to be Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a tool for you to use to report someone in more than one noticeboard. Might I suggest you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This works both ways. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the insult above is the third insult or aspersion this editor has thrown in this matter (1, 2 & 3), and they've threatened to run to ANI after I reverted them one time. All I've done so far is make one revert and challenge the veracity of the arguments they've made thus far. I know next to nothing about AIM. I've heard their name a few times. But I noticed they've only been mentioned on RSN once, and that was a completely credulous listing of sources agreeing with each other. I've noticed that it's used on a couple of pages here. So I suspect it's a pretty non-remarkable source with a political bias that may or may not be reliable. But I can be sure of a couple of things:

1. Having a bias doesn't make a source unreliable.
2. The arguments presented against it thus far have been entirely devoid of substance.
3. Starting an ANI thread over a content dispute is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Other than that, I'm ambivalent about the content. I will, however, continue to revert by reflex anyone who removes sourced content because they don't like the source, unless it's one that the community has determined to be unreliable, and I would politely ask that an admin tell Anarcho to knock off the bad attitude. (I'm asking politely, I don't want you to tell them politely. I would much prefer they be told quite rudely, to be honest.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also what looks a bit like forum shopping [4] to get pants banned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. You told me to go to RSN. There are two issues here. The source in itself, and stubborn, uncommunicative behaviour. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I never told you to go to RSN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I said that the discussion of the source might be best taken to RSN, and I did not report your posting of that here, but you commenting on Pants there. You were reporting Pants for a breach on a forum that had nothing to do with him after launching this ANI, that looks liker canvasing to me.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If I reverted someone removing a BLP allegation from Breitbart, and said it wasn't right-wing, conspiracist and climate denialist, how many minutes would it take before I would rightfully be blocked Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind about one thing. I don't want an admin to warn Anarcho. I'm asking that they be blocked for 24 hours so as to give them time to chill the fuck out. Here's the evidence in the form of diffs containing personal attacks or aspersions:

• personal attack
• casting aspersions
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• casting aspersions
• casting aspersions
• casting aspersions

As I said before, I'm completely open to the notion that this source is unreliable. But I'm not open to being raged at by some editor having a temper tantrum. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, AIM is a reliable source for AIM's opinions, so if they called Jones a "pro-Russia propagandist", that would be legitimate to present, as long as it was clear that it was AIM's opinion and wasn't presented in Wikipedia's voice.
  However a careful read of the article indicates that while they may have done their best to insinuate some wrongdoing on Jones' part, associating him with Russian propaganda as much as they can, they actually only charge him with spreading disinformation. Being a "propagandist" requires intent, which spreading disinformation requires only gullibility and a lack of fact-checking. As such, I've removed the claim from the article again, with an explanation similar to this on the talk page, and have expressed the same opinion on WP:RSN.
  Any additional commentary here should be about whether either editors' behavior rises to s sanctionable level. I don't see where MjolnirPants has done anything worse than misread the AIM article, which is not sanctionable (if it was, we'd all be in time out), and I haven't taken a close look at A-A's behavior.
  In any case, the editing dispute should be handled on the article talk page, and the question about AIM's reliability should be dealt with at RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to follow up on my last post, I took a look at the diffs provided by MjolnirPants, and while I think that Anarcho-authoritarian's comments are rude, repetitive, combative and deliberately insulting, I don't think that they quite rise to the level of being sanctionable, although they should provoke a warning to the editor. However, my standards regarding WP:UNCIVIL may be markedly different from others', so I would suggest that an admin or two should take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• All IMHO, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, Try looking at those threads in context: this went from 0 to I-fucking-hate-Hammerbritches in no time flat. By the time Anarcho made those edits I listed, I'd only manages to make two comments (neither of which said or implied anything negative about them) on the issue. Hell, I hadn't said anything except from the edit summary in my revert by the time Anarcho started comparing me to a six-year-old. If this was an ongoing dispute, I'd agree with you. But this was how Anarcho approached a dispute. There was nothing to justify the bitterness and anger that's so apparent in those comments. Which is surprising, even though I'm well aware of my ability to inspire hatred in people with an observable POV. I just thought it was things that I'd said which inspired that hatred. Apparently, it's something in my signature, or maybe on my user page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think you have every right to be annoyed -- I would be if those edits were directed at me -- I just don't believe that a block is warranted at this time. I've now warned A-A on their talk page, and although it's not official in the way that a warning from an admin would be, I do believe that if A-A continues in that vein after the warning, then a block would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, RE: "I've now warned A-A on their talk page, and although it's not official in the way that a warning from an admin would be", I would say it is equally official to any warning given by any similarly experienced and knowledgable editor, regardless of admin status. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If Anarcho is content to drop this bullshit, I'd be happy enough. But given their approach thus far, I highly doubt that. We've got forum shopping, repeated insults, bad-faith accusations, content disputes (and more insults) on ANI and a pretty blatant battleground mentality, all within a couple of hours. In fact, all of that happened before Anarcho made even the slightest effort to actually make a case for their position. The worst part is that when they finally did, it wasn't a bad case at all. The actual arguments are good enough for me to be okay with removing the claim. But if this attitude was about the content dispute, then why didn't Anarcho make any effort to make their case first? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-authoritarian removed a clear BLP violation. See comments on the source at RSN. It is the responsibility of editors restoring content in a BLP to verify content is complaint before restoring.

Warning AA while ignoring those who restored a BLP violation is unwise. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thouse? Then it might be a good idea to inform them about this ANI as you have suggested action against them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning AA while ignoring those who restored a BLP violation is unwise. Warning editors who throw temper tantrums the instant their edit is challenged is unwise? Really? I've already explained this once at RSN, but clearly I need to do so again. When an editor removes sourced content without ever mentioning BLP, but only alleging a bias in the source in terms that are red flags for POV pushing, they can expect to be quickly reverted. I will revert again, the next time I see that stuff. If said editor then can't be bothered to make a case for the source being unreliable until the next day, after hurling repeated insults and filing an ANI thread over a content dispute, suggesting that they haven't done anything wrong and the editor who did the revert has is one of the most ridiculously ignorant notions that I've seen in a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by 2600:1017:B027:BB1E:1828:936:113B:CAAE (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC) deleted. WP:WIAPA, don't make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the actual behavior you object to? As far as I can tell, you were reverted just a single time - you say "continually revert", but unless I'm missing something or it spilled out onto separate pages, you were only reverted once and they immediately backed off once you explained your reasoning to them in more detail. Even if it was a bad revert, that's hardly something that calls for WP:ANI's attention - things like that are why we have WP:BRD, which appears to have been followed here to the letter (you made an edit, they objected, you talked things out and resolved the issue.) Yes, the editors you're complaining about screwed up when they used that source, but I don't think it's a mistake serious enough to justify accusing them of bad faith or WP:COMPETENCE issues given that they immediately backed down once you presented your full reasoning - and I think that, even for WP:BLP issues, a single revert to ask someone to elaborate on their reasoning is defensible in all but the most blatant cases. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

...the editors you're complaining about screwed up when they used that source... I didn't add that source. I reverted an edit with a giant red flag for an edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for forum shopping as I had never even heard of such a thing. I merely believed it was the same as noting multiple projects about a deletion request. I was wrong. I apologise to the other users and now the unreliable source is removed, all discussions I opened on the subject can be closed. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Daymn The level of gaming going on by MjolnirPants is comical. Deflection at it's finest. MjolnirPants still hasn't answered for their use of a terribly awful source for an attack on a BLP. I'd love to hear that without anymore deflection.--v/r - TP 18:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Hmm, but MjnonirPants seems to have already answered that here. I think this is a "teach the controversy" matter. I.e., there is real-world controversy about this person, and it seems to be encyclopedically pertinent to cover it. The fact that a characterization of someone in a publication is probably motivated by subjective concerns is pretty much always going to be true. The thing to do here is probably to balance AiM's claims with what other sources say. It might also not be necessary to include the specifics of AiM's claims, just to note that there's disagreement in the far-right about whether Jones is actually in their camp or not despite self-identification as right-wing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's hardly an explanation. Feigned ignorance sandwiched between more deflection. If you want to raise that up as MjnonirPants' strongest defense, be my guest. I just hope he's as transparent to others as he has been to me. AiM is a conspiracy theorist far-right website of serious questionable reliability, let alone authority on what the "far-right" believes.--v/r - TP 22:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't speak for anyone and have no interest in trying to. No one said anything about an 'authority on what the "far-right" believes'. Our standard approach to any such controversy in the real world is to cite secondary sources that note the controversy, and quote or paraphrase primary sources making claims regarding their side of the controversy, balanced with quote from other side(s). AiM may or may not be authoritative about anything, but per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY they are the authoritative source for what their own opinion is. That said, I'm not certain this controversy about Jones is off sufficient encyclopedic interest to include at all. To get back to the ANI matter, I do agree with M'Pants that it's normal procedure to revert unexplained deletion of sourced material; if A-a wants to make a showing that AiM is not somehow reliable for what its own collective, published opinion is, or that including something from them cannot presently be balanced with a counter-viewpoint, then that's a case they need to take steps to outline. A-A just silently holding an opinion in that regard isn't grounds for revert-warring to get his WP:RIGHTVERSION. PS: A-a hasn't provided any diffs displaying M'P doing something wrong, while M'P has presented plenty of A-a doing something wrong (mostly NPA/CIVIL/AGF issues). Since this is a behavioral-matters not content-assessment board, well, it's clear whose case is stronger.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TParis: Gaming? Evidence or shut the fuck up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Deflecting like a champ. You are talented, aren't you?--v/r - TP 11:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Regarding the content, Anarcho was right: AiM is a generally unreliable source. The only problem was the giant hissy fit they threw over being reverted before bothering to make a case (seriously: one link to one of their more outrageous stories would have been all it took to convince me, but I guess making reasonable arguments in place of hurling insults was just too much trouble). Well, that's not the only problem. The political gaming by attacking an editor with admittedly left-wing personal views by editors who spend waaaaaayyy too much time whining about WP's supposed left-wing bias is problematic, as well. I'll note that neither James J. Lambden nor TParis have offered any sort of evidence, instead making unsupported accusations and calling for sanctions because... Well, reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Evidence of what? That you hadn't answered for your behavior? Please, that's all over this discussion. Only when dragged to ANI have you finally admitted that AiM is a shitty source for negative material on a BLP. Questionable motives and questionable judgement to say the least.--v/r - TP 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are completely full of shit. My first substantive comment on this matter included me explicitly telling Anarcho that I'm completely open to the possibility of being wrong about this source, just like my second comment, both of which precede this ANI thread. I've taken the exact same position since my first interactions: Anarcho's approach had all the red flags of (left-wing, no less!) POV-pushing, but I was and remained open to the possibility that they had a case to make.

There's absolutely no evidence of me "gaming" anything; you just pulled that out of your ass over you self-admitted complaints about my personal political views. Well there's a fix for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 2 October 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.

MfortyoneA

MfortyoneA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved Enclosure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Enclosure (legal) without consensus. It's since been moved back and a discussion is underway on the talk page. The problem is that MfortyoneA also changed every internal link to point to the new article title, which is now being CSD'd. Is there a way to get those edits batch reverted? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

@Chris troutman:--I am not very certain but as far as my knowledge goes there runs a certain bot to take care of these issues.Nope, it doesn't look like so! As of now,I have temp. removed the CSD for proper working of the links and prevent sudden deletion. Whoever decides to take a total look at here, shall evaluate the merits of the situation and shall revert the edits by MfortyoneA prior to deletion (if any) of the redirect.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA's creation of redirects continues. Can an admin bring some sense to this situation? I don't think MfortyoneA has any intention of doing anything other than redirects and disambig, which seems problematic when it's pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just pointless but sometimes non-constructive, like this. A common noun in English, previously un-wikilinked, does not need to be linked to a dab page just because Wikipedia has an article about a specialised concept by the same name - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, after all. And even if it were, how would a link to a dab page help our readers? --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure ... A common noun in English .. yup, that's precisely my point. it seems crazy to me that this common noun has been used for such a specific meaning enclosure (legal) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I did this to illustrate how much enclosure doesn't mean enclosure (legal) to most people. if we get precise links, it's easier to get the right links. talk:enclosure (legal) , going through the previous exercise yielded the fact that enclosure had been mislinked. my mission here is to get enclosure renamed. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

'how do dabs and redirects help', emergence, discovery. does anyone claim to know every context in wikipedia themselves? someone else who knows more on a specific subject could come in later and re-target a redirect more accurately. the redirect can capture context. If those original cases (stonehenge's mention of enclosure for example) were more contextual, they'd be more likely to be caught. Isn't the fact that links can clarify jargon really nice? the hovercard feature??? you move the cursor over a term, and without needing to open it, it can clarify it for you with a popup. Isn't it great to leverage this more?MfortyoneA (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not do this ever again. Adding an emphasis to somebody else's post is a form of changing the meaning of that post - maybe it is what the original poster intended, maybe not, but the only relevant thing is that if the poster didn't choose to add emphasis, nobody else should either (certainly not without clearly stating that they have done so). Anyway, here's how I see it: Wikipedia has an article called Bridge. Does that mean that every time the phrase "bridging the gap" is used in another article, the reader automatically assumes that a physical bridge is meant, because there is a Wikipedia article about that meaning of the word? You just used the word "leverage" (which I have never seen outside extreme marketingspeak, but never mind that). Do you mean for me to assume that you are physically wielding an actual lever (since the top definition at Leverage is Mechanical advantage)? No, of course not, in both cases. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we often use words in articles without any regard for the fact that there are homographs which have articles about them. A Wikipedia article title is not a definition of what the word in the title "means" for Wikipedia's purposes.

if I wrote leverage , i could indeed clarify it as leverage (marketingspeak) :) MfortyoneA (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But this is actually not what we need to discuss here. Your post above reads as if you have been making these edits to make a point about the meaning of one particular word. You have also been making these edits rapidly, and restoring them when other people have reverted, even though you are aware that there is no consensus in favour of the changes. That's not how it is supposed to work: when you realise that there are different opinions you discuss the changes you want to make, you make your case on the relevant talk pages, and you do your best to get a consensus in favour of the changes. Making these large-scale changes, with new redirect pages, lots of new dab page entries etc is not collaborative, the way I see it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many tabs open - that edit did not add a link to a dab page, but it was nonetheless unnecessary and the rest of my comment applies. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Chris Troutman was criticising me for 'not knowing the content of an article', and actually going through this excercise of simply linking via the terms (making the terms more precise) yielded that the article was infact confusing. Isn't the point of wikipedia to be read by people who don't already know it, rather than for some clique to pat each other on the back about it. the article used to say enclosure was specific to the 18th century, then he basically calls me stupid for not knowing that it isn't. He's admitted the mistake and changed it to say 'middle ages'. Just Following the word , I discovered other historical uses that weren't. Surely this kind of error would be less likely to occur if the title was more accurate in the first place. The title is too vague. the point is EVEN WITHOUT domain knowledge, just clarifying and linking individual terms CAN increase the value of this resource. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MfortyoneA has, as noted, mostly been creating redirects, and disambiguation pages that are often only necessary because of the redirects. While redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, it appears that Mfortyone is cluttering up the encyclopedia and wasting editors' time. Does anyone else agree that a topic-ban on redirects would be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Does google pay trolls to stop wikipedia from growing into a search index? .. is that why there's so much resistance to redirects and dabs? stranger things have happened, in recent times.. MfortyoneA (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If I were to answer yes to that question, then, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. As I said, redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, but they are only important when they facilitate use of the encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to be a search index. That was a useful reply in that it shows that the OP appears to be trying to make the encyclopedia into something that it is not. See What Wikipedia is not, but maybe that guideline needs another paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ok so you don't deny it. a word like enclosure could be a user friendly search index, but then google would get nervous about a rival. That's the only rational explanation I have for the insane policy here. I see 11000 instances of that word. I wonder what proportion of them are *really* 'the legal process (in england) of combining smallholdings'. along the way there are subtle changes in context though. the more precise the links are (for every word), the more wikipedia can help self-correct, or teach us things we didn't know we wanted (like, until yesterday, I didn't even know this use of enclosure existed. I discovered it as tangent from looking into housing. You know our society is in deep trouble when people can get all snotty, preventing others from improving a lovely free resource of hypertext MfortyoneA (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATSOCIETALHYPERTEXTWRONGS. EEng 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Umm... MfortyoneA is currently making about three edits a minute, most of which appear to be changing redirects to enclosure (legal). Doesn't seem exactly like the most constructive thing with an open RM and ANI. Just... FYI. I also seem to be getting some terrible deja vu to this discussion... probably purely coincidentally happening two weeks before MFOA's current account was created. GMG^talk 12:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of that as well but couldn't find the discussion. Thank you for linking to it, GreenMeansGo. If nothing else, I think it is required reading to see what the discussions were before, and why so many people feel that overlinking and the overuse of redirects is a bad idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here and suggest that we get a checkuser to look into it before this goes on any longer. Those are pretty exceptionally obscure articles to have such an overlap on for a user having exactly the same behavioral issues and nearly the same technobabble-esque responses. GMG^talk 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} GMG^talk 21:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd is  Stale and I see no reason to check for sleepers, so I'm declining CU. Sorry. Katie^talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser template deactivated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't frequent SPI, and didn't realize the data was stored for such a short period of time. I'm still personally convinced it's more likely than not, but I guess there's nothing we can do about it. I would note though the user continues to make on the order of several hundred edits per day related to these discussions, for whatever that's worth. GMG^talk 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a private way to submit some behavioral evidence without an account? I've noticed a couple very specific similarities that seem pretty damning to me. -96.2.70.251 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ping GAB, who seems to be my go-to SPI expert. GMG^talk 00:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Acknowledged. GAB^gab 02:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many notable similarities:

• Large page/subject overlap, including some very obscure ones (as per EIA above)
• Similar types of edits per page (lots of linking - pick an article from the EIA)
• Same idiosyncrasies in their writing styles (check their talkpages)
• Non-use of edit summaries (check their X! tools)
• Near-exclusive focus on editing articles (also X! tools)

The behavioral evidence is pretty persuasive. GAB^gab 03:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So... what happens now? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Could the editor please curb further upwellings of going nuts with WP:POINTY mass edits, and discuss this kind of thing before horking out dozens of redirects to a disambiguation page? Fat trout at the least, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest that MfortyoneA be advised by the community to not move pages without discussion except in cases where obvious things like capitalization is at stake. This should get across the message to them that anything potentially controversial needs to be discussed. This would not be a formal sanction, as things have not gotten to that level yet. If MfortyoneA can take this advice into consideration and not perform moves that could potentially be considered controversial without discussion, then we should be done here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  The move was fine - the failure to promptly reverse it was not, although it is understandable given the relative inexperience of the editor. The cleanup of the resulting links is harmless if the move gets reversed, and helpful if it doesn't. There appears to be some overlinking, as well as some overdisambiguating, but unless the sockpuppetry charge is demonstrated (Endorse checkuser request BTW), nothing here merits a dragging to the dramaboards. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But it is not just about moving pages without consensus, which is of course bad enough. A greater problem is the mass creation of redirect pages and dab pages, and the overlinking of common words in articles, based on personal preference despite a lack of consensus, or (worse) for WP:POINTy reasons. I believe it is beyond "some overlinking", simply because it is so time consuming to clean up these things. Oh, and because MfortyoneA has restored some of the instances of overlinking without any attempt at discussion except for their posts in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is now changing working blue links into red links[5]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

if there's a case where that's accidental , i'll fix it, there's one place I can remember where it's erroneous and I wasn't sure where it *should* point. The problem is, the enclosure article is about one specific historical/legal phenomenon, but many articles use the word enclosure where the context is clearly about something else (animal enclosures, walled enclosures, plastic enclosures etc). isn't a redlink better than a silently wrong blue link? MfortyoneA (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just stuck a message on this user's talk page concerning Highland Clearances. The message refers to changes relative to Enclosure which is, if I understand correctly, the subject of a move discussion. My note on the user talk page stands alone - but it seems it should be known within the wider context of this user's activity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear on the activity on Highland Clearances, prior to the edit, the reader would be linked to Enclosure and Common land, after the edit the link is only to the renamed version of the former. Hence the protest about a hasty edit.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This editor appears to be on a one man campaign to reform Wikipedia. Many (though not all) of his edits are unnecessary, and he rarely explains them. Rwood128 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another pointless edit by User:MfortyoneA: [6]

User:Chris troutman, frequent edits like this are surely a problem [7]. However, User:MfortyoneA also is making positive contributions at times. What to do? He has been frequently offered helpful advice but ignores it. Rwood128 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Disruptive, and mass edits Just looking at their last few edits, this is significant disruption to disambiguation. The computing edits are OK. We need an immediate stop to clear up. I just reverted [8] after the dab project post was clear there's work to cleanup. Widefox; talk 16:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA please discuss your editing here. You're now engaged in an edit war when I'm trying to cleanup/revert your edits at Enclosure (disambiguation) [9]. Widefox; talk 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did explain the rationale for that one example addition in the comment. One of the many mis-links to enclosure of common land that I found was from 2 articles about boeing aircraft, mentioning part of the aircraft that happened to be an enclosure. As you explained, 'the links there should be to things the user was reasonably looking for' - I take a mis-link as strong evidence that 'enclosure' can mean enclosure (engineering) (in turn, housing (engineering) which is how I got onto this whole topic in the first place). MfortyoneA (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure has been that way for 10 years .. given the large number of links to it, without someone championing the cause of a move it's just going to linger on, IMO. as there was no existing page enclosure (legal), and the first line of enclosure said "..is a legal process.." I figured that redirect was a safe intermediary (reasonable probability of being the final article name, and easy enough to redirect again if not). going through each one, linking to something that is definitely *not* ambiguous clarifies that it is no longer a mistake. check the discussion where I listed some of the examples of mis- links that I found. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:MfortyoneA you need to stop pushing all your edits and WP:LISTEN. The dab was tagged as a mess after your edits [10] and reported to the dab project. I saw that and started to go through the mess and decided a revert to last good version was best [11]. At this point your edit was contested (e.g. per WP:BRD) you should Discuss on the talk. Instead, you undid the cleanup [12]. This, together with the above doesn't convince me you won't stop trying to push and disrupt. This is WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

if I did that it was a mistake. I only consciously returned one line enclosure (engineering) along with an explanation of that in the comment. Perhaps something went wrong in the way I went back through the history to copy that line.. that whole reversion is definitely not what I intended to do there. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems',Sanmina Corporation(engineering) are the articles that used to link to enclosure - as per your explanation of what a DAB page should include, I figured enclosure (engineering) was justified to be listed under enclosure (disambiguation). I didn't mean to revert the others. The contexts can be broad or vague, even within 'engineering'. think of a venn diagram, and narrowing it down. (hence the whole thing of enclosure (legal) to at least rule out these other meanings) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page has many editors saying all the same thing - slow down, stop disruption, can't understand edit, speedy delete/XfD, reckless page move, reckless primary topic change [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and others, all in a five months. Your response seems to be you don't know why you did those edits, or they were a mistake, but whatever, you carry on! When will this stop? Widefox; talk 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... other's pleading to slow down, long lists of disambiguation link notices, complaints about how links to obvious terms are ambiguous. Don't forget about those. GMG^talk 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

• I have blocked the account as a sock of User:Fmadd. I spent the better part of an hour checking their contribs after reading GMG's note on my talk page, and their editing patters and behaviours are almost identical (this time with forks/enclosures instead of computer/physics terms). They were a huge waste of the projects time last time we had this song and dance, and there's no need for us to go through it again (as before, there are 360 new pages to deal with, 321 of which are redirects, most of which seem to be of little use). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Rather than trying to tag all of their various page creations, admins can mass-delete them. Since it seems they were also mass-relinking to their new redirects I'm reluctant to do so as it would create a large number of redlinks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Many of their contributions are still current versions, so someone could mass rollback them and provide an appropriate edit summary. I'm willing to do it, but it's probably best for an admin to handle. There are roughly 1200 "current" version mainspace contributions and 101 new pages. – Nihlus (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'd also like to see the CU Katie refused to check for any sleeper accounts. MfortyoneA was particularly disruptive and I'd like to prevent a repeat performance in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "mass delete" allows us to mass-delete a user's new page contributions, but there is no "mass rollback" to automatically undo all of their rollback-able contributions. I was mistaken about this myself in the past, but as far as that goes admins don't have any better tool than repeatedly clicking the rollback button through their entire contrib history, which is a bit reckless. As for CheckUser,  Clerk declined,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. The case history is no less stale now than when Katie declined the check above, and as I understand it, CheckUser isn't much use when there's only one known non-stale account. It is precisely useless against accounts which haven't yet been created. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a mass rollback script. Thank [insert deity here] for Writ Keeper!.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo, how about Sülde Tngri, for whom WK seems to have a special liking? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Personally, I would have chosen with Xochiquetzal (or Lauren Duca), but I suppose we can go with Writ Keeper's equestrian war-man.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Psst, Ponyo, it's an article that he wrote... Drmies (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yeah, there is a mass rollback script, as Ponyo said. I've used it numerous times to counter fast vandals or undo their edits once blocked (example). It rolls back every possible edit on the screen and allows a customized edit summary over the general non-informative one. – Nihlus (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good to know that script exists, I'll definitely bookmark it. I had a few discussions in my non-admin days with admins who were positive that such a tool did not exist that eventually I assumed they must be right. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support CSD G5 mass cleanup. After a few hours cleanup, there's few good edits, but much disruption. Mass delete, rollback the rest. Editors in several venues are already investing time on borderline dictdef confusion, move request, XfD etc. Widefox; talk 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Laundry - how far to go?

Does this "cleanup" extend to articles they haven't even edited? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Single purpose IP account appears to be asking for multiple page moves for no apparent reason

• 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an IP account that started the page move request on The Incredibles and seems to have opened their single purpose account for the sole purpose of creating the same page move request on multiple Wikipedia pages. Everyone appears to be opposed to these odd requests, and I was wondering if this looked like some version of a poor joke by this IP here: 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log). Their Talk page has been notified and I have removed the odd request from the Covenant page pending review results on this page. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There was an editor a few months back who did exactly this - making pointless page move requests for films, with no real rationale as to why. I can't for the life of me remember the user name though. I'd put a lot of money on this IP being the same user, judging from the requests logged. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is clearly non-constructive disruption; the moves and suggested moves are not even consistent with each other, but are random insertions/deletions of : or The , and all run counter to MOS:TITLES, WP:COMMONNAME, and reliable sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sumitsharaf

Sumitsharaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this editor's heart is in the right place but I can't bring him to understand the concept of WP:V and he keeps adding unsourced information. Here are just a few examples 1 2 3 4 but there are many more and quite a number of warnings on his talk page. I also tried to explain to him that he should follow WP:UNIGUIDE and not add lists of programmes, that he should add an edit summary and (multiple times) that he should not add wiki links to disambiguation files (Private is his favorite) but he simply ignores his talk page. Help in explaining to him that he should be following polices will be appreciated.--Muhandes (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

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.

---

We have an IP hopper basically saying they will not stop editwaring till he/she cant see history Conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

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.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

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 semi-protect this? An idiot has turned up, probably excited by the events in Las Vegas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Done, thank you. Alex Shih^Talk 05:06, 3 October 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.

Disruptive IP 188.39.214.99 woke up 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.

---

188.39.214.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to need a next block. --CiaPan (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Blocked - these sort of reports can be made at WP:AIV where they will often be acted upon in a more timely fashion -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Thank you, I'll try to remember that (although I make such reports so rarely...) --CiaPan (talk) 10:44, 2 October 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.

Revoke TPA access for Category5AtlanticHurricaneBoy101

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.

---

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, per 1 2 3 4. WP:DENY. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was about to do this, but User:Alex Shih got there first. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 2 October 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.

Liar

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:Kintetsubuffalo objected to an intervention I made in an article, and called me a liar. (See Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Photograph). As can be seen, I indicated to Kintetsubuffalo that this was against WP standards; Kintetsubuffalo then called me a liar again; I further requested Kintetsubuffalo to remove the word liar from his/her comments. S/he did not respond. I referred this matter to dispute resolution where the arbitrator decided "Closed as not an article content issue, at least not as presented. User:Kintetsubuffalo is warned that referring to another editor as a "liar", even if their statements are inaccurate, is a personal attack. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue." I accept this decision. However, Kintetsubuffalo's response on the talk page has been to escalate the situation by provocative remarks, and to leave the 'liar' statements. I don't care about the provocative remarks, but I am concerned about the 'liar' comments remaining on the talk page of the article (which btw I am working on and slowly trying to bring up to GA standard). I don't myself seek redress or action against Kintetsubuffalo, but I should be grateful if the unwarranted and excessive allegations against me as a 'liar' could be removed. I am therefore reporting this matter to WP:ANI as advised by the arbitrator at dispute resolutions ("report personal attacks if they continue"). Smerus (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that Kint has removed the AN/I notice from their talk page so they've acknowledged that the discussion is taking place and have elected not to participate. Further I note the combative history of the user's talk page and agree that an official warning from an admin needs to occur indicating that the behavior (casual swearing, being incivil, not responding to complaints, etc) is unacceptable and must not continue per WP:CIVIL. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Warned Kintetsubuffalo about AGF and CIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This complaint has a disturbing WP:BATTLEGROUND tone. @Robert McClenon: closed the DR with advice "Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue." I don't see any evidence that the personal attack, to wit, calling Smerus a liar, has continued. Kintetsubuffalo made only one remark, again expressing his pique but stating that he's dropping the matter. No repetition of "liar". So why the complaint here? At the very least it can't hang its hat on Robert McClenon, who wisely closed the matter to avoid further recrimination at DR. @Ad Orientem: I think you've jumped the gun here and suggest you look into the related threads and give any warning equally to both editors. I edit that article page infrequently and it was a stupid nuisance to see this pop up on my watchlist with a childish edit war. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect, the advice of @Robert McClenon: was for me to go to ANI if personal attacks continue, not only if I was again called 'a liar'. And also, if I may, the comment made by @SPECIFICO: on Kintetsubuffalo's talkpage - "This warning is inappropriate and any such warnings should be directed equally at @Smerus: after a more complete review of his ANI complaint. More appropriate: Withdraw this undue warning and shut down the ANI thread" - seems rather to be prejudging the issue.Smerus (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, and I say this as one who greatly respects your past contributions to WP, you did not take the time to write up a well-formed and fully documented complaint here that would have allowed this to be adjudicated without needless tail-chasing here at ANI. He made one final gotcha post expressing his resentment but I don't see where the "personal attacks continue" and if you have a diff that fits McClenon's bill then just post your evidence. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well since there appears to be no one actually denying they are personal attacks and there is agreement it is a personal attack, would a third party admin follow WP:RPA or I will in 24 hours if Kinet hasnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, is it a personal attack if it's, you know, accurate? A little something Smerus left out. On the talk page, he wrote "Without explanation, User:Kintetsubuffalo has twice deleted from the photograph in the lead the words 'unknown photographer'...". Except that Kintetsubuffalo DID -- twice -- in the edit comments. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

While you're at it, consider what you'll do to show Smerus not to edit-war. This just needs to be closed and forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• This situation feels very tempest-teacuppy to me. Namely:

1. Kintetsubuffalo removed "photographer unknown" from a caption citing WP:MOS on captions.
2. Smerus rolled back without explanation (which in itself is a violation of rollback, as the edit was not vandalism).
3. Kintetsubuffalo reverted, calling out the rollback violation and stating that he had given a policy.
4. Smerus rolled back again, with no policy but an opinion and command not to revert "unless you have evidence as to the name of the photographer".
5. Smerus opens a talkpage discussion claiming that Kintetsubuffalo twice deleted "photographer unknown" "without explanation"; later adding "If s/he does have evidence of the name of the photographer, that would of course be gratefully received".
6. Kintetsubuffalo reverted the caption again, again citing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits.
7. William Avery cites WP:CAPTION on the talkpage, as advising against credits for their own sake.
8. Kintetsubuffalo calls Smerus a liar (in bold) on the talkpage, stating that he had given an explanation and again citing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits.
9. And so on and so forth, with Kintetsubuffalo responding to further comments "Or, you could just stop lying."
10. Somewhere along the line it gets taken to DRN (by Smerus) and rejected.
11. A bit more squabbling.
12. Meanwhile, if anyone had bothered to actually look, the name of the photographer has been on the file since 2011.

In other words, just your basic Wikipedia squabble/mix-up that happens thousands of times a day. I think the worst of it was bolding the word "liar", but other than that, silliness all around, and best completely ignored. Kintetsubuffalo, you can defend yourself without calling other people liars. Just state the facts. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender, for stating the situation clearly. I don't dispute your analysis, or my own misjudgements. I simply seek a way of removing the inappropriate comment 'liar' being applied to me and remaining on view in WP.Smerus (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: I personally never respond to personal attacks, even when called a liar or worse, even if it's repeated. To me they simply do not exist, and I only discuss edits, not editors; I also do not use the word "you" or refer to other editors by name. The only thing that sets this particular case apart, in my mind, is that the word "liar" was bolded. Otherwise, this is all ignorable in my view (since it is not a repeated pattern across multiple pages over time). Perhaps Kintetsubuffalo could just unbold that word and we could all move on. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Smerus, you are correct that Kintetsubuffalo should not have called you a liar. You were incorrect about (a) using rollback inappropriately, (b) saying something demonstrably untrue about another editor, (c) making snide comments about what he says on his user page, (d) making a smug-sounding semi-apology ("I am sorry that my error in this small matter is causing you such anxiety"), and (e) insisting that someone else should make the first move to decrease tensions, and only then will you do the same ("In this light, I cordially request you to remove from this page the comments where you label me as a 'liar', and I shall be glad to remove this comment, and, if you wish, my previous comment"). I'll let the reader decide which was more unimpressive. If you'd like my advice, I suggest first striking thru your personal comments about KB (which you made before you were called a "liar"), make an actual apology, clarify that it was not a lie but inattention that caused you to say something incorrect, and then ask him to remove the word "liar" because it bothers you, and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And: Please don't use a misrepresentaton of @Robert McClenon:'s close to create a platform for your pursuit of this petty squabble. That may as well be retracted too. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly pinged in commenting on my close of the DRN thread, but it appears that no one disagrees with my close, and that I have nothing to add. I agree with the comment that this is a tempest in a teapot, and with the analyses of User:Softlavender and User:Floquenbeam. I don't understand why User:SPECIFICO is increasing the Beaufort force of the tempest, but it is still in the teapot. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert, you volunteered to offer your considered advice at the DR close and it was disregarded and this stupid ANI was presented as an instance of your recommended action. That was incorrect. I didn't say it was a lie but it was at least a careless incorrect statement. If you don't care, you could say so without the side snark. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Smerus You have a legitimate complaint about some of the language directed towards you. To which end I have posted a cautionary note on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. But I would also note that some other editors have brought up some shortcomings in your own conduct in this rather overblown affair. I'm not going to belabor them but I hope you will take their words on board and try to be a little more thoughtful when engaging with other editors. Beyond that the only thing I have to add is that it has been my experience that sometimes the better course of action is to just let things go, especially when the issue is so minor, or even trivial. Sometimes people get worked up and tempers can get short. With so many people and differing personalities it can be helpful to develop a thicker skin and ignore petty sniping. You might also want to take a look at WP:STICK. I have nothing further to add and I agree with SPECIFICO that this has gotten more mileage than it deserved. If someone wants to close it, I won't object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 3 October 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.

Disruptions of lot of newly registered users

A lot of newly registered users are attacking me in Bulgarian again and are making disruptive edits. Probably a socks of User:PavelStaykov. @Джингиби да не пише: and @Вълчо терориста:.Jingiby (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As an example, see here, where an editor attacks Jingiby as a psychopath over a date of birth. Also appears to be two likely socks at work there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The first account is blocked, I saw it at UAA. To any non-Slavophones wondering, the username is a personal attack. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

IP disruption

The IP 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA is being disruptive and reverting silly edits on my talk page when I delete them. He is also using 174.193.3.212 and 174.198.16.216. He is insulting my contributions because I warned and revered him. He saying he makes good edits on articles like Kiwifruit and Cousin when most of his contribs are reverted by other users. He keeps accusing for nothing, restoring removed comments and he has been warned by other users as well. I want to ask you admins to see what you can do to unearth this situation. Thanks and please ping when replying. Redgro (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Redgro, it would be good to have specific diffs as to where you think the IP is insulting my (your) contributions, and accusing of nothing.

But I see you have attempted discussion on the IP's talk page, and that this was the second warning they had received, the first being from a third party. I take it that you regard this sequence of edits as disruptive, and see that you reverted them in the next edit to that page.

I don't see any attempt to notify the IP of this discussion, and suggest you do that urgently, as it's a strict requirement when raising matters on this page. You might also note that this is not the place to bring any sort of content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the Apparently disruptive IP. The above party threatened reporting me so I took a look to see where the report was in case I needed to use the system myself someday. I have been editing and Wikipedia for a while (around 8 years) and choose to do so without creating a login mostly because I created a login a long time ago that I really liked and only used a few times before I lost the password.

My major contribution is to reorganize articles for readability and comprehension not necessarily to change the content. Sometimes it is very difficult for people trying to look for vandalism to go through my entire change as sometimes I forget to save it in multiple steps, make small grammatical mistakes that people revert the entire change for, do not annotate the change sufficiently on The Talk page, in the change notes. Every once in awhile (when I start working on articles that are new for me) it occurs that people assume that because I am nameless and because of the scale that changes I am performing vandalism. Eventually it always works out as all parties see the value in my changes and are appreciative of them. The party above seems to be insulted that I wrote on their talk page. Sometimes I can be a bit terse but I am never mean or cruel. Therefore, I conclude that the above party thinks that they have more rights than I do because they chose a screen name and the idea of a unnamed user correcting them on their talk page is what is offensive not what I said. I do understand that it is preferred policy that people create logins, but assuming that they are lesser than you because they do not use one does not help produce better articles and I really liked that old username. :) I only wrote in response to the above parties accusations to help clarify things and to educate them. As I feel the situation is already resolved favorably on my side. I will refrain from any further communication with the above party until another issue arises. Hopefully this causes you no more trouble. I would recommend that the above party should gain some maturity. I have been offended many times by what people have done in Wikipedia sometimes it even made my gut wrench, but I realize that these opinions are my own and do not create better content by pursuing them. If someone removes 20 hours of work I just go back to the drawing board and find another alternative that appeals to more people. Wikipedia in this way has taught me humility. I believe the above party should learn the same. As a note to you. Although the articles are more mature than when I started working with Wikipedia, it does seem that there are less and less people volunteering their hours to make changes occur and less and less people using the talk pages of the articles appropriately to make group decisions. As you know we desperately need more help and users like the one complaining above do a great disservice by discouraging people from helping.67.162.25.59 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP from which that edit came is not of course any of the three mentioned in the complaint. You seem to use a lot of them! Which makes it difficult, but that's not your fault.

Is this edit, by user:32.218.38.102 also one of yours? It looks like a good one to investigate.

Redgro, that's not one of the IP addresses you gave either, but is it part of the same pattern you want investigated? It seems to be. If not then please give diffs of those that are. Andrewa (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not one of mine. Although I think Redgros actions were not proper, I do not wish to lodge a complaint against him for his aggressiveness, threatening, and hostility. I do not think it would teach him anything. He seems pretty convinced that I am a bad guy. Do you want a list of I.P.s that I have used. I don't think I can make the list complete it would go back a while. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That IP you mentioned Andrewa, is not his as he said. The reason why I told you to stop using my talk page is because you are restoring comments which were removed by me. That is not allowed and is a Wikipedia policy as you did with this edit. Also you were being rude to me by saying I have probably done more good then you ever have and great disservice by discouraging people from helping. I think we should agree to close this discussion and move on. I hope we never negatively interact unless another issue occurs. Redgro (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that simple, Redgro. You've made some allegations and asked for admin intervention to resolve them. Now you must either back them up with the evidence, or face possible sanctions yourself. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I reverted some of his edits which was this edit and gave him a level 3 warning for removing content. He had already been reverted and warned by Favonian (an admin) with this edit. He then accused me for something I did weeks ago because he thought his edits were constructive and I had reverted them for no reason in this change. I know this user is using multiple IP address because of his changes in my talk page see [21]. I then went to his talk page and posted [22], which was gentle advice to stop editing disruptively. I said that because most of his edits are reverted by more experienced editors as in the history pages of Cousin, Kiwifruit and Food irradiation and are sometimes misguided. He went to my talk page and got [angry] at me and started to get tough. I reverted that edit and he re-reverted on my talk page and added this. I went to his talk page, rather annoyed and posted [23]. I want admins to solve this argument between me and the IP. I think the IP is a good faith editor and wants to improve it but sometimes makes misguided edits which do not represent Wikipedia in the correct manner. Thanks! Redgro (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are deliberately wasting my time, it will not work. He then accused me for something I did weeks ago because he thought his edits were constructive and I had reverted them for no reason... diff for this accusation by them, please? The accusation was, I take it, that you had reverted them for no reason. But what specifically was their edit that you regard as disruptive? That's what you've left out.

You have made an accusation of disruption. You have now given a long-winded reply that does seem to attempt to provide an answer, just tangental material. That is disruptive on your part, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in Myanmar

While not a great article, it's probably not worth having the load of editorialising that I just edited out, changing what sources say to defend Myanmar, e.g "The government is accused of actively promoting Theravada Buddhism (practiced by 90% of the population) over other religions, particularly among members of ethnic minorities. Even there are some accusations that Christian and Islamic groups continued to have trouble obtaining permission to repair existing places of worship or build new ones, but it is totally wrong information." with the bold text being the additions added over the last year. More eyes? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ankurc.17

Hi. Please can someone block this user. I've asked them not to post on my talkpage, but they keep reverting a comment I've removed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention the incident properly. You accused me of not knowing English or for that matter that I edited something when it was already announced yet you reverted it back. This is not the first time you have done this and am pretty sure you have harassed others before as well. Just because someone is finally standing up to you that you are now complaining about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:REMOVED, Lugnuts is allowed to remove posts from their own talk page. Stop edit warring and leave it alone. If you do it again, I'll block you myself. Katie^talk 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Katie - I knew there was something about removing posts from my own talkpage, but I couldn't find it. Happy for this to be closed. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Lugnuts also allowed to tell people that they don't know Ënglish"and to "fuck of"or call names? is he also allowed to bully others?? (Unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes Lugnuts has a free pass to be uncivil. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering Lugnuts believes that Wikipedia trumps medical attention over one's pets, you got off light. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

8 reverts in 24 hours...2600:1017:B01B:E3F6:191B:A253:5EBC:ADF (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove notices from his own talk page? I won't speak for everyone, but I'm sure not going to block him for it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but edit warring to restore a comment on someone else's talk page even after you've been told that they have a right to remove it would seem to be a blockable offense. Certainly people have been blocked for doing so on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit War in African admixture in Europe page, 2 users involved and allegedly 3RR rule broken

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 TechnicianGB began an edit war a few days back with an anonymous IP on the article African admixture in Europe. I am not fully aware of the substance of the dispute but I did notice multiple breach of Wikipedia rules. The version of the article which he began an edit war with had been stable for 2015. Requests were made by the editor he was in conflict with to follow WP:BRD and bring to talk page. I eventually intervened and opened a discussion on talk page, simultaneously reverting his edits a couple of times.

My attempts to encourage the editor to follow WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STABLE on the article talk page, his talk page and my talk page can be seen here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803652117&oldid=803641370
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803739481&oldid=803699189
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803740175&oldid=803573991
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803748020&oldid=803744363
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farangizsaifi&diff=803749286&oldid=803749074
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803749397&oldid=803748142

Note the last highly cordial message he called a "Personal Attack".

Excluding a couple of self reverts, the editor breached the WP:3RR by reverting a two year old stable version 4 times in 24 hours.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803745940&oldid=803745847
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803744050&oldid=803739340
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803698870&oldid=803652117
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803641325&oldid=803616534

Upon his fourth revert, he instantly requested CambridgeBayWeather to protect the page.

It was only upon his new version contested by other editors was protected that he accepted using the talk page as discussion:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803744328&oldid=803739481

This is not true. I wrote in the talk page because you accused me there and the page was already protected (not semi-protected) and there aren't another "editors" but a single anonymous IP. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

He however still did not accept that the issue I had was not with the content of his edit but the manner of his editing. I thereby requested him to be patient and wait for editors he is in conflict with to respond as per WP:BRD.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803747253&oldid=803746579

This is not true, again. There are NOT another editors but a single anonymous IP which has the same writing style and edits the same or very similar articles than you do, but this is another story. You even admitted to not check the sources or my editions, as I aware you to check them because I was just writing the factual information and deleting some data which wasn't backed up by any source. You didn't care but just kept reverting my changes, exactly as that anonymous IP did yesterday... --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I request this editor to be made understand that he is in breach of a number of editing rules, namely WP:BRD, WP:STABLE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR: That he cannot change a 2-year stable version against the criteria of other editors in breach of 3RR rule and make his new version be the precondition for any discussion. This is not adequate behavior on Wikipedia. On my side it is not a content dispute, since I am have not read closely the sources/matter at hand, although I suspect WP:NPOV editing by the combative style and the way the editor has changed his "new version" when confronted with sources by the person he initiatated the edit war with. I hope Admins can have a look at this. There was no need for an edit war on a topic which can be calmly discussed on talk and consensus reached, as long as it is explained to this editor how to edit constructively. I take it up with Admins and will no longer be involved. Farangizsaifi (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I just warned today this user for breaking the 3RR rule and to check the sources for a constructive edition on the page and now it's accusing me of doing it, lol. I'm telling him that the 3 RR doesn't count for self reversions or for reversions of 3rd party anonymous IPs but he is just in the "this is my version mood" and doesn't want to hear nothing.

After those 3 reversions I warned him and then I proposed the page for protection:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803652117&oldid=803641370
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803739340&oldid=803698870
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803745847&oldid=803744050

I also warned him and he started this senseless discussion blaming me for breaking the rules... this user is pretty new and i'm sure that he has to read a bit better about the rules, as he blamed me before for "breaking the self reversion rule" which is clearly stated that a self reversion does not enter in a 3 RR reversion.

He is also neither editing constructively editing the page, as he is putting changes which contradict the source. in that African admixture page. I'm just writing things which are mentioned on the sources and below, as those things are not mentioned on any source and he claims that it's a stable version, which was posted months ago by an anonymous IP. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS were not accepted by him.

There is nothing such as WP:STABLE in that page which is constantly attacked by anonymous IPs. This is just on those past days:

96.95.175.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 88.17.188.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 31.4.211.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and suspicion on 80.30.156.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , which I will talk more specifically about this user after this.

My editions were deleting the false information on the page African admixture in Europe, as the sources were not backing up the text. He didn't even check the sources or my editions, he just was in a "no-no" mood reverting them.

He even admitted here that he didn't even look at the sources, but he kept reverting my factual changes applying what the sources say: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803747253&oldid=803746579

I first warned him in his talk page, he deleted it all and said "understood" but he was still in the same "no-no" mood. So I proposed the page for protection and the administrators are taking care of it. After that, he started to write a lot on my talking page, as well as to put the typical images for users vandalizing pages (copy & paste from who knows where) and then he copied and pasted in my talk page the discussion which we had on his talk page and the African admixture talk page. Why?

After all of this, I even left a new message in his talk page considering that this discussion is resolved, but he went further, readed some Wikipedia rules and came here to accuse me of the things which he did today. I also have a highly suspicion that he is, as well, probably the same user as 80.30.156.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP as his writing style is identical, and he basically edited the same articles with this anonymous IP.

This is senseless and nothing more but a edit war, I was just sticking to delete the false information which wasn't backed up by sources while this user even admitted that he didn't look at the sources, just started to revert my editions because he considered them as "not stable". How can a page be "stable" if it hasn't got any source backing up that information? What would I win lying? I got thousands of edits in Wikipedia and I know perfectly how does it work. I just warned this user today with the rules and he started all of this mess up. He is basically accusing me of what he did... --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Admittedly not a new editor, I don't see where you have made the connection to your previous account, Farangizsaifi. Is there a reason that you have not done so? It might help allay concerns here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter My old account has been inactive for such a long span of time (years now) it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am specifically making clear I do not want to get involved in the subject-matter of the edit dispute, I don't want to edit war on this. I just wanted this user to understand how Wikipedia and WP:BRD works. A simple explanation from an admin would be enough. Farangizsaifi (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor correction. TechnicianGB didn't ask me to protect the page. They posted at WP:RFPP where I was already enjoying myself annoying people. They asked for semi and got full. I didn't war either as they both seemed to know what they were doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: and @Berean Hunter: can we delete this or archive this? The user has been confirmed as a troll, a sockpuppet of Gaditano23 and it has been blocked definetly. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:20, 5 October 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.

Range block expert?

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.

---

At February 27 we've had a user repeatedly adding what looks like their own name to it, using a second account after the first one was blocked. Now they're doing it from IPs, using 113.210.110.9, 113.210.118.14, and 113.210.142.159 so far. If there's anyone around who's experienced in range blocks and checking for collateral damage, would they be kind enough to see if there's a range block possible here? Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 3 IPv4 addresses:

113.210.110.9

113.210.118.14

113.210.142.159

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
64K	65536	3	113.210.0.0/16	contribs
8193	8192	2	113.210.96.0/19	contribs
	1	1	113.210.142.159	contribs
3	1	1	113.210.110.9	contribs
	1	1	113.210.118.14	contribs
	1	1	113.210.142.159	contribs

@Boing! said Zebedee: Any other IPs? Currently there's no good range -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the only three we have so far - thanks for trying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: There'sNoTime, that Template:blockcalc thing looks really good, thanks for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, does that top one block *chokes* >65,000 people?!?! — fortunavelut luna 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A /16 does, yes - 65,536 addresses from x.x.0.0 to x.x.255.255. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The range is very busy and blocking would not be the way to go. Semi-protecting the page if he returns would be a better strategy in my opinion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:03, 5 October 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.

POV block needed for antisemitic Nazi IP

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 we get a POV block for User:2600:8805:1500:72f0:9561:2d01:888d:3f20, who described Adolf Hitler as "our lord and savior" [24], called Josef Mengele a "hero" [25] and "Savior of our race" [26], and Reinhard Heydrich "the savior of the master race and slayer of kykes". [27] Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, Beyond My Ken, under the theory that "slayer of kykes" is a horrific misspelling, as well as totally unacceptable for several other reasons. The proper way to spell the slur is "kike". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that you upheld the venerable and sacred Principle of Correct Spelling of Slurs. Now if you can just get the Brits to spell "honor" and "color" correctly, and stop calling trucks "lorries" and elevators "lifts", everything will be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 5 October 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.

Presenttruth777

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.

---

Presenttruth777 has been causing problems at the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist page despite warnings and explanations. She or he almost never edits anywhere else (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).

When other people have removed inappropriate things from this page, such as Special:Diff/792709793, she or he restores them, Special:Diff/798562646. This user added a section of unsourced text to this article a few days ago ([28]), which I removed, Special:Diff/801573336. That part was restored, Special:Diff/801581912, and I deleted it again, Special:Diff/801584847 and left a sourcing notice at the editor's talk page, Special:Diff/801584875. The editor then put it back with references to [29] and [30], but I removed them on WP:CIRC grounds, Special:Diff/801742471, because [31] is not reliable (it's just a memorial that was read at someone's funeral) and [32] is a doctrinal statement that depends on a Wikipedia article (or actually, two of them). After removing this text, I explained to Presenttruth777 why I had removed it, Special:Diff/801742774, but Presenttruth777 just put it back with more unreliable sources. I made one last revert and was once again undone, Special:Diff/801860080 and Special:Diff/801979677, and since Presenttruth777 keeps reverting me, I won't hit the undo button again and again and again. And Presenttruth777 responded to my removal explanation, Special:Diff/801841514, by saying "The sources are verified and well known within the Davidian community. Your arbitration judgment is unacceptable--STOP controlling our original article." It doesn't matter if these are well known within the Davidian community if they aren't WP:IRS, and WP:OWN it's not Presenttruth777's original article.

I don't know much about the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. I don't know if this text is accurate or not, and if it's referenced to a reliable source, I wouldn't touch it. I just know that it's not right to base Wikipedia articles on other Wikipedia articles or on unreliable sources like eulogies, so someone needs to stop this editor who just keeps adding unsourced or badly sourced information and thinks that I'm trying to control her or his own article. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. You don't know much about Davidian Seventh-day Adventists evident by trying to eliminate a very important and integral part of the report. Ben Roden, founder of the "BRANCH DSDA" is often confused as being an "original Davidian", thus there is need to point out the differences. Although not lengthy on showing his divergent teachings it does touch on this important difference, The references are well known in the DSDA and BDSDA community and are considered reliable.

False you are trying to control it, this article has been labeled as high importance and we have had it running now for several years with relatively few problems until you come along, with very little knowledge of the historical DSDA truth/teachings. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */

I noted they were just reverted again at the page for adding materials from a primary and not secondary source. Of concern however is the comment on their talk page "STOP controlling our original article". Is this a joint account from the church itself? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to note the continuing validity of the observation that editors with "truth" in their names almost invariably turn out to be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I was actually just about to post a comment along a similar vein @Beyond My Ken:. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Great minds, and all that. Beyond "Truthy" Ken (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do know a bit about this group and have some idea of what may be accurate and not accurate. I'll help sort it out. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We (us who have experience in DSDA teachings and history) will continue to monitor this article we wrote and make sure it STAYS clear and truthful as originally intended. If anyone have a "legitimate" concern let us know but stop arbitrarily deleting what is true and verifiable. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */

If by "clear and truthful" you mean "adheres to DSDA's view of itself", then you're in for some problems if you violate WP:NPOV and prevent other editors from presenting verifiable facts about the group that they would rather not have in the article. Please see WP:OWN - no one editor, or any group of editors, "owns" an article, whether they wrote it or not. Watch your step, because your statement reads very much like an attempt to own that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the top three contributors to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist article [33], User:Presenttruth777, User:Tonadachi, and User:Srodinfo (cf. "The Shepherd's Rod") have edited little or nothing other then that article or the Branch Davidians article. Also Tonadachi's last edit was 2013-06-18 and Presenttruth777's first edit was just 5 days earlier, on 2013-06-12, which perhaps indicates the turning over of the responsibility for "guarding" the article from one person to another within an organized group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with an honest truthful article. Now if you can point to errors and misstatements of facts then let's talk, but your personal opinions and assumptions won't cut it. As this article has been labelled as "High Importance" and shown by the tens of thousands of views over the last 3 plus years, we would hope that anyone here who want's changes can bring to the table solid facts and historical references to back up there changes.Some edits have been beneficial and should stand but those that are false or misstated of facts should not be allowed to stand in this article.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777

The page and related pages contain material ommisions and a whole lot of promotion. There is a lot of overlinking amd links back to the same page too. I've started to clean the page up - will see how Presenttruth777 reacts. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"What does all this have to do with an honest truthful article." "Honest" and "truthful" are fine, but what we need the article to be most of all is neutral and verifiable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Please do not archive or close this discussion, as the attempt to WP:OWN the article Davidian Seventh-day Adventist by User:Presenttruth777 is ongoing. My prediction: this is inevitably going to end up with Presenttruth777 being indef blocked from editing, but we have to let things play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no attempt to own the article as we have agreed with many edits (improvements) in the history from the beginnings of our submission of this historical article based on the D.S.D.A movement. However we strongly feel that incorrect and factless editing is detrimental to the very purpose of the article. Presenttruth777 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777

I'm confused here. Who is the "we" to which you refer? DMacks (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. These posts are the nearest Presenttruth777 has come to answering questions like DMacks's above. It looks like a role account, swims like a role account, and quacks like a role account. I also don't find their claims to be "regular individuals and not associated with any particular group" very convincing. I've blocked the account indefinitely, attempting to explain why on their page, and telling them we need a clear and comprehensive statement as to who controls the account. If they furnish that they may be unblocked. Or not, since we don't allow role accounts. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 October 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.

Aiden James

An anonymous IP (whom I'm presuming to be Aiden James himself, given the advertorial overtones of what's happening, but can't prove it) is persistently editing Aiden James with improperly written advertorial content about his newest single — namely, he's trying to not just use the media coverage to source that the song exists, the way it's supposed to be done, but to directly use the media coverage to source the fact that the media coverage exists: he's expanding the already-existing and already-sourced mention of the song's release to include followup information like "then Billboard covered it! (source: the same Billboard article that was already being used to source the song, and thus isn't really its own separate piece of information in its own right) then individual radio stations added it to their playlists! (sources: the front pages of those radio stations' websites)". And he's writing the whole thing not in complete sentences, but in proselined sentence fragments that aren't consistent with encyclopedic writing style.

The problem here is that I've already removed the advertorial bumf twice today (as well as once last week), but he keeps reverting it back into the article again — meaning I'm going to trip the WP:3RR wire if I remove it again today. Is anybody willing to assist? Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Both accounts created Jan. 2, 2016. Article has been semi-protected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Logosncompanies

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.

---

Logosncompanies is constantly adding unsourced content, refuses to heed warnings from other users, will not communicate, as a matter of fact has asked do not add content. to their talk page. Definitely showing WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:46, 3 October 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:Walter Görlitz

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 raise concern about this editor, who is uncivil and using bullying techniques.

The user added the verifiability banner to the page Shania Now Tour. Every piece of information in the article was sourced at that time, by reliable sources, see [34]. I reverted the edit, stating as such. The user in question reverted my edit, then I reverted again, asking what needed to be sourced. The user reverted again without responding. I left the page as is, not wanting to start an edit war. The user then left a message on my talk page, which had nothing to do with verifiabilty, at which point I suggested that the user was engaging in disruptive cite-tagging, likely because the user attempted to have the article in question deleted, and was unsuccessful. I moved the discussion to the article's Talk:Shania Now Tour where I very clearly asked that user to identify what needed to be verified. The user just copied and pasted what they wrote on my talk page. I calmly pressed the issue, at which point the user finally removed the verifiablity banner (likely realizing they were in the wrong all along) but continued to leave condescending and insulting messages. I left the discussion and the project. After two weeks, I returned giving the user the opportunity to rewrite their message in which they call me stupid and tell me to shut up. The user would not rewrite or strike out that message and instead "aplogized" while calling me incompetent and said I have no place on the project. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Of for crying out loud. At the time I added the template it was required because, while every piece was sourced, the content needed additional references per WP:NTOUR. I finally changed it. The editor was terse and obtuse in his responses and if this many words were written on the talk page to elucidate, there would be no offense taken by me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This edit by Walter Görlitz concerns me:

You seem incapable of understanding logic. You complained. I allowed you to do the right thing and decide whether you wanted a notability tag or the sources tag. The idea was to shut you up. I see it didn't work. Which would you like? Either answer or shut up. Cheers

Not only is the language combative and confrontational, but it flies in the face of the fact that, as Thankyoubaby notes, Gorlitz' previous replies had been non-responsive to the question about what in the article needed to be sourced, thereby justifying his clean-up tag. The reply he made, which concerned notability [35], was not responsive to the question asked [36], and, indeed, the notability question had already been answered by the AfD. It seems if anyone had a right to be short-tempered, it was Thankyoubany, not Walter Gorlitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. No one here is a mind-reader. Just because an editor feels certain there's a sourcing problem of some obscure kind doesn't mean they can revert-war and be hostile about it, all while failing to explain the nature of the alleged issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't trying for a hostile edit war though and I did think I explained the nature of the issue. At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided. They are there now. Likely not because of my tagging though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: wrote in his edit summary on the article, "survived AfD, so notability tag is not appropriate " There were clearly other editors who felt it did not meet notability criteria—WP:NCONCERT or WP:NTOUR—or was WP:TOOSOON. And the AfD was closed as no consensus (non-admin closure) with only the notifying editor here voting for a clean keep. Is that really surviving the AfD? That four editors saw the article as problematic one month ago is why it was added and others had questions about whether it belonged. While I didn't agree with Power~enwiki's non-admin closure, I knew it would eventually become notable and so didn't reopen it. The tag was added with valid reasons. The tag is no longer valid and I should have probably removed it when the UK tours were added as the beeb covered it quite well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If the article was not deleted (it wasn't) and is still in the encyclopedia (it is) then it clearly "survived" AfD, as there was no consensus to delete it. That some editors expressed notability concerns about it is not relevant to that, as even kept articles are likely to have comments expressing those kinds of opinions. At the very least, the "no consensus" at AfD should have alerted you to the fact that the putative lack of notability was not sufficient for the article to be tagged for notability, and was more of an issue for discussion on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That the article was closed by a non-admin without due cause and the closure was not contested is clear. There was a greater consensus to remove it from the project a month ago than there was to keep it. That more than half of the !votes questioned its notability is the only reason that it should have been tagged and that the discussion was had on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're so certain that many editors would support a notability tag, get a consensus for one on the article talk page. Seems simple enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I recognize this user name. The dude's extreme sourcing pedantry and article-hovering drove me from an article I was planning to substantively add to, and source, and it actually was the final straw for me giving up on WP... (mostly I was successful but there's always some little edits a person wants to make, so up goes another account where I don't have to make my friends wonder if I'm back or not). Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me; I'm very well aware of what Walter does. First of all, every edit I've seen from him in the mainspace is very constructive and utilizes his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and Manual of Style. If it were me, I'd say that this is more of the incompetence of the reporter that created this rather than Walter's actions here. Walter's edits on the article were just fine; the talk page discussion ended with a civil change of template, which was later removed as the article survived an AfD. In short, I wouldn't call this bullying, but rather it's Walter Görlitz helping a new user understand how Wikipedia's guidelines work. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Either answer or shut up." Very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the actions seem fine, the tone not so much, nor the refusal to provide a rationale. Given this discussion, I trust the approach will be adjusted and not be an issue in future interactions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed to be hoped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It will be. But yet, Thankyoubaby never explained which template was preferred and I did give valid reasons for either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you wrote above, "At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided." My sincere advice to you is to never edit Wikipedia when you are "very angry", and never edit with the intention of getting other editors to "shut up". If you are angry, please stop editing Wikipedia until you are completely calm and in a collaborative mood. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I will certainly attempt to do so going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

After a rocky start, my compliments to Walter Görlitz for his response to this thread. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing more to see here, where's my hat? Carrite (talk) 16:11, 5 October 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.

Rhode Island IPs and Badmintonhist evading a block

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist/Archive, a complaint against Special:Contributions/68.0.204.180 resulted in Floquenbeam blocking the Rhode Island IP for six months starting in August.

A new IP from Rhode Island is now doing the same things, also starting in August: Special:Contributions/131.109.225.34.

Both of the IPs, the sockmaster, and confirmed sock Motsebboh were active at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center, in every case working to diminish SPLC. A very similar IP, Special:Contributions/131.109.225.24, was blocked for the same reasons in 2015. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

131.109.225.34 anon-blocked for three months for block evasion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that does it. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

I'm just going to be bold and close this. We can't take action on something if you don't provide evidence for it. Feel free to reopen if you can provide such evidence, preferably as a diff link. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

It was manufactured in South El Monte not El Monte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B04B:F303:40F0:86A6:4677:7195 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, can we see a diff please? Otherwise we can't fix it. Yoshi24517^Chat _{On Wikibreak} 04:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Bender the Bot was manufactured in Tijuana?

Jokes aside, the bot's last edits are from September 2, and all of them are repairing broken links. Can you please name the article where you saw this error so we can take a look? –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Google is pointing towards it being a gun manufactured by AMT, but not sure which model. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is about, does anyone else? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Throwaway Rollbacktime account 'imposing' content (3RR violation, etc.)

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

An account seemingly created for one specific purpose, 'enforcing' the presence of (non-article) content in the "List of most visited art museums" [37] and "List of most visited museums"[38] articles.

• Special:Contributions/Rollbacktime.

Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• May also be Special:Contributions/DKON. TP ✎ ✓ 20:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• [39] First one solved, will look at second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • DKON blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• SiefkinD (talk · contribs) now seems to have the baton. Perhaps page protection is in order? Otherwise this could become a game of whack-a-mole. Kleuske (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked them, and an IP, and semi'd both pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Possible legal threat from User:Austintexasart

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.

---

Please see File:The Ecospheres of Daniel Pavon Cuellar.jpg - this seems to be a legal threat. In addition, also see this user's talk page on Commons - their uploads both here and there should probably be put up for deletion and/or the user blocked until OTRS permission is provided. If there are Commons admins here, they should probably have a look at File:ACTIVE LAWSUIT IN AUSTIN TEXAS.jpg and File:LAWSUIT Vs Attorneys Austin Texas.jpg too. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I am not sure if the user was making a legal threat, rather using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their legal action. I've blocked the user and deleted the promotional images. Looks like it's being dealt with on Commons too. Alex Shih^Talk 15:31, 5 October 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 between Users Domdeparis and SergeWoodzing (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.

---

Suddenly, I am being accused of spamming on the talk pages and in edit comments of articles (so far) Batavia, Illinois, Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, Jacob Truedson Demitz, Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse, Valentine's Day and Wild Side Story by the other user mentioned above. It's hard for me to find good faith in some of the edits, remarks and accusations.

Apparently, that user does not like one particular person Emil Eikner, personally, and would like to censor Wikipedia to exclude or limit the use of that name even where (as I see it) clearly relevant, especialy in a few images and their captions. Even if he appears doing a song with a notable person, for example, the whole image is to be removed. When he's presenting a piece of music he owns to a mayor, his name is to be 86'd. Personal animosity toward producers and other employers, for reasons that are not too hard to grasp, even toward relatively unknown ones, sometimes complicate Internet projects.

I am asking that that user's and my own behavior be looked at neutrally in that regard. I admit I made a mistake in linking the controversial (?) name from Wikipedia to a Commons gallery page.

Having been thus accused once before, some time ago, and aquitted, I now feel uncertain as to whether or not I took that aquittal as license to misbehave. I certainly hope not, and that has never been my objective. I have gladly done my best in good faith to contribute construcvively.

I try very hard to keep Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest in mind and not to add images that do not include generally notable persons and/or are clearly relevant to articles (as I see it) in other ways. As most users, I have had my images removed, or have replaced them myself with better images from other sources.

Problems now began at Indian Love Call where reverts without discussing article content seem to be this user's method of sorts to get h way - please see Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster.

On several pages of article talk, the user obviously wishes to personalize the issues, without addressing an article's content, by simply copy-paste repeating the spam accusation and referring to accusations made on my talk page, which I twice have asked should cease there.

Without opening any talk about them, the user today also added BLP source and notability tags to well-referenced articles Jacob Truedson Demitz (66 footnotes & references & carefully evaluated in 2008 by several neutral users & marked as a B Class quality article), Wild Side Story (35 references) and Birgit Ridderstedt (15 references). It just looks like retaliation at me because I have been involved with those articles.

I'm hoping these problems can be contained where they are now, not expanded extensively, and that they can be resolved equitably with your help. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It certainly looks to me like the OP is "wedging" mention of this individual into the encyclopedia anywhere he can. I've removed the picture in question from the article on Batavia as it is non-illustrative of any part of the article. That being said, this is a content dispute and not a matter for ANI, and I will be closing it. Work it out amongst yourselves and if that fails, avail yourselves of WP:DR processes. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 5 October 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:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments

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:Legacypac was warned multiple times about altering other editors' talk page comments. Some recent examples: altering a discussion after it's been closed; silently removing another editor's comment; altering another editor's comment under the guise of fixing an incorrect link; removing their own username from a complaint against them; "accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records; these are just from the last two weeks that I've been able to easily find in Legacypac's contribution history. When someone pointed out Legacypac has a very long history of altering and deleting other people's comments, Legacypac deleted their comment... Since Legacypac was sufficiently warned by admins (and non-admins) about this behavior, I think it's time to block them. Bright☀ 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the rest of it, but ""accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records" is pretty obviously a fuck-up given that the next diff, no more than a minute later, is to undo himself literally with the comment "wrong button". If he was actually trying to remove Taku's comment I feel like he would have, you know, not done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• What a dismal collection of links! September 14, 16, 15, 12, 16, 24 and March 13. The last (the warning by an admin) was for striking out a comment by a now-indeffed sock and is of a totally different nature to the others. The first link shows Legacypac tweaking a comment they had written 20 minutes earlier—I'm not sure what that is showing. Is anyone suggesting the second diff was not highly desirable (it removes a link to an article added by an inexperienced editor)? The third shows Legacypac removing Legacypac's name from an ANI section heading, two weeks ago. Perhaps not the wisest, but defensible and not a big deal. The Sep 12 edit was to remove a pointy and pointless remark (very close to a personal attack) directed at Legacypac. See immediate revert "wrong button". Now we're up to the Sep 24 edit, and that shows what this is about. BrightR does not like the fact that Legacypac removed a pointy and pointless comment from, gasp, BrightR's talk. Would people asking for sanctions at ANI please not hide the underlying issue. There was no edit warring, and asking for a block is ridiculous. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I believe that such a deceitful posting by the OP, at ANI no less, deserves some response from the community to indicate how we feel about such behaviour? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only that, perhaps it is also time to take a look at User:DocumentError, who posted that comment to BrightR's page. In 2016, DocumentError edited for one day: in 2017, they edited one day (four edits to Trump), and then suddenly they reappeared on the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case to where they have now edited 28 times (give or take a few), starting with "evidence" defending Arthur Rubin about actions against... Legacypac[40]. This seems all to be retaliation for an ANI discussion in early 2015[41] started by legacyPac, about DocumentError, whih resulted in a block for DocumentError (first 36 hours, soon after an indefinite block). It seems that since then, he has avoided enwiki until now, when he has the chance to take revenge upon Legacypac.
  • I now notice that his unblock (five months after he was indef blocked) was with restrictions, including an interaction ban with Legacypac[42]. If this interaction ban is still valid, then the Arbcom edits and the edit we are discussing here are rather exteme breaches of this and it may be best if we simply re-indef this user. @PBS: as the admin who blocked and unblocked. Fram (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fram this edit and the links that branch out from it explain the situation. The indefinite block was only to force DocumentError to say if he would keep to a voluntary agreement or not. By the time DocumentError had finished procrastinating and playing the "unfairly done by", so much time had passed that there was no need to renew the restriction that were meant to be voluntary. What stayed in place was the ban I placed on DocumentError Legacypac from mentioning each others behaviour before 13 January 2015 (see ANI § Harassment). This was put in place to stop ANIs degenerating into an historical blame game instead of concentrating on current behaviour. If there is continuing trouble over their interaction then I would support an interaction ban. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Legacypac's behaviour the edit by DocumentError linked at the top of this section, given Legacypac and DocumentError interaction less than helpful.-- PBS (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks. So they have a voluntary interaction ban, installed on 13 January 2015; they never accepted the interaction ban, have been unblocked by User:PhilKnight in June 2015 anyway, and DocumentError asked for a reblock on themselves in August 2015[43]. The current situation of the editing restriction was never made clear apparently. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • One other section on the original previous proposed voluntary iban conversation that I did not include above (because the link was broken due to archiving) is: § In ref to the ANI, it took place on my talk page on 13 January 2015. I gave DocumentError a further 24 hours to say yea or nay to the voluntary ban. When DocumentError error did not respond I blocked the account initially indefinitely (then adjusted until the end of the proposed six month voluntary iban period). -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not think this ANI post is deceitful, and Legacypac was indeed completely in the wrong removing someone's criticism of him from the OP's talkpage. He also needs to completely stop removing usernames from ANI threads, regardless of what some users think about that; it's a practice that is not going to go away because of a single poll, and it increases the utility of the board. The "silently removing another editor's comment" seems to be a standard ANI edit conflict that happens often. This removal of another user's comment should be regarded as accidental since he reverted less than one minute later, and said it was accidental. My recommendation would be a final warning to Legacypac about altering others' posts or talkpage headers, with a block to ensue if it happens again. The warning 1.5 years ago was arguably too distant. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see this report as timely or actionable, mostly per Johnuniq. I also agree with Fram that DocumentError needs some looking at to determine if their edits have violated their restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Few weeks ago it was Beyond My Ken on the chopping block and this week it's now LegacyPac .... Wonder who'll be dragged here next week!, Anyway the only thing I see troubling is this diff (That comment shouldn't of been removed) and this diff (Why would you remove your name I don't get that? ... ) but other than those 2 I don't see any troubling behaviour - The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first!, Anyway as per Johnuniq this should be closed as non-actionable ... boomerang's pushing it isn't it? ... –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Davey2010 thanks for your comments. Diff #1 is an obvious accident I was unaware off until now. Maybe I saved a page again that User:TonyBallioni had both just edited? Anyway, purely accidental and I've restored it, though the discussion is over. Diff #2 is removing my name from an ANi thread header against me that failed [44] per [45] Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I noticed it at the time but it didn't bother me enough to restore it or even mention it to Legacypac. I just assumed he accidentally removed it during an edit conflict. In the lead up to the ACTRIAL rollout there was a lot of activity going on in a bunch of places, and I think this happened a few times with multiple editors. I have no reason to think Legacypac was trying to remove anything I said, and if that diff is being discussed here, as the other "party" I'd urge it be disregarded. I hadn't even remembered it until I was pinged. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry I obviously didn't realise it was accidental - There may of well been a valid reason and you could've just forgot to include in the edit summary (I've done this multiple times as wasn't trying to assume bad faith), As for Diff 2 although it failed I still personally don't think it should've been removed - My name's been dragged here more than once but I've never thought about removing my name but we're all different and although I perhaps object I don't think it's worth bringing you (or anyone) here over it,

• Well as LP has kindly explained their reasoning here I now find nothing troubling (Diff 2 I somewhat object with but this can be discussed), Bright should be topic banned from making any sort of ANI complaint because so far they've all seemingly failed. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• A formal warning seems appropriate. Specifically, a warning that Legacypac may not remove or alter comments made by other editors in any way on a page other than their own user talk. Fixing typos/wikilinks made by other editors is not desirable, per WP:TPO. The real problem is the removal of comments criticizing them or that they don't like, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the real problem is an editor who has an interaction ban with Legacypac (as a condition to get an indef block lifted) who stalks Legacypac and violates his interaction ban with impunity. The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though).

Per PBS, User:Mr_rnddude, and User:Reyk below, my voluntary IBAN ended a little over two years ago. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• who stalks Legacypac

Per Legacypac [[46]], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this month - in the last three years. This month, this is the extent of my "stalking": [47]. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• BU Rob13, just as a minor point of clarification, Legacypac is a regular recipient of formal warnings, "only warnings" and "last chance" warnings about editing others Talk page comments. (i.e [48], [49], etc.) DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• As one who has previously been in @Legacypac:'s camp, I'll make the statement abundantly clear: Because of previous questionable actions, do not under any circumstances edit or modify another editor's talk page efforts. An exception is given for properly archiving stale threads, but no others. If you don't make mistakes and people still chase infractions, then they're vexatious litigants, and we know exactly what to do with them. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment User:BrightR I really really do not want to have to start to look back the interaction between yourself and Legacypac to see why good Wikipedian that you are you would need to make a citizens arrest like this. So can you briefly explain the history of your interaction that has motivated you to bring this ANI? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: noted above; I asked Legacypac not to edit other editors' comments (after he edited mine); he responded he doesn't know what I'm talking about. Another editor (who I now found out has an interaction ban with Legacypac) commented on my talk page about it, and Legacypac deleted their comment. I asked the admin who gave Legacypac the warning to act on it, but they couldn't since they're in a content dispute with Legacypac, and they suggested coming to AN/I. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first! You mean like this and this? Since AN/I is the place for long-standing behavior issues I find that the suggestion to take it to WP:AN was correct. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:BrightR As I do not know the circumstances of most of the edits above I will not comment on them. But there is one I will is altering a discussion after it's been closed. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines although not strictly applicable to ANIs most of the guidance is still useful. See the bullet points in the section WP:TPO "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate,...". See also the section WP:TALKNEW "Keep headings neutral" and the phrase in that "Don't address other users in a heading:" Just as the heading that Legacypac edited failed that guidance, so does the current text of this section "User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments". The major reason for this is explained in the sentence "As edit summaries and edit histories..." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal... Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators... Bright☀ 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because others do it does not make it good practice. Why not make you section headers for ANI reports neutral? Why object when someone else who change a header to be less biased? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see anything presently actionable here. Replacing one's name in an ANI subheader with an acceptably specific pointer isn't sanctionable conduct IMO unless it's deliberately disruptive, or someone is under an explicit ban from doing so; do we want to enact such a ban for Legacypac? Further, removing comments from one's own talkpage is explicitly allowed per WP:OWNTALK. As for DocumentError, as PBS explained above they never accepted the "voluntary" ban on interactions with Legacypac. They explicitly rejected that condition, and insisted that they should be re-blocked until a subsequent discussion could determine their fate. It seems when no admins took them up on that, they simply left the project. The only ban that is in place AFAICT is that LP and DE may not refer to instances involving each other prior to 15 January 2015 in any subsequent ANI discussion (my interpretation). (edit conflict with below) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector - just a point of clarification. Legacypac did not remove comments from his own talkpage. Of course, that would be permissible. He removed my comments from BrightR's talkpage. [50] He has, in the past, freely edited and deleted others comments on Talk pages (not his own); User:DESiegel warned him on an earlier occasion [51] such acts are subject to immediate blocking. After he continued to do it with other editors, User:Cryptic told him [52] another instance by him would result in an immediate block. You can imagine how frustrating it is for some of us to express our opinion on content and issues only to have our opinions changed or amended after-the-fact - or completely erased - by others. 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentError (talk • contribs)

Background on BrightR's post:

1. On Sept 24 BrightR templates me with no explanation of why and
2. I revert template with "Take to their talkpage. No idea what this is about" (same diff)
3. I request details at BrightR talk [53]
4. BrightR ironically edits my comments by moving them from BrightR talk to my talk, where they make less sense [54]
5. I revert his post with "This belongs on your talk page. Still no diff."
6. BrightR never supplied a diff but I notice this post to BrightR's talk (which I'm now watching since I was looking for that missing diff) by DocumentError who sees another opening to get me sanctioned [55]. Rightly or wrongly I removed this post as harassment by an editor butting into a situation with a laundry list of perceived wrongs.
7. On Sept 26 BrightR uses DocumentError's list of perceived wrongs to post to User_talk:Cryptic#Legacypac_deleting.2C_altering.2C_and_striking_out_other_editors.27_comments Claiming he never had time to supply a diff, but linking this diff from Sept 21 where I removed User:Beyond My Ken's name from a live ANi header (with comment: no need to name editor in header of failed proposal) where BrightR's attempt to sanction BMK for edit warring failed spectacularly. This is not editing his comment as he claims, but editing an ANi header.
8. BrightR restores User:Beyond My Ken's name to the header, after it is archived [56]
9. Note at Cryptic's talk User:DocumentError showed up suggesting I take this to ANi.

Summary: On Sept 21 I did not edit anyone's comments, I changed an ANi header that referenced User:Beyond My Ken. I get templated on Sept 24 for this by BrightR who refuses to supply a diff. Then on Sept 26 BrightR uses info supplied by DocumentError to seek sanctions against me, revealing for the first time that they are upset about the BMK header. When Cryptic declines to sanction me, BrightR starts this Sept 28 ANi thread. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "refuse" anything; as soon as I got on Wikipedia after you asked for a diff, I gave you the diff... I templated your talk page, you asked what's it about, I said it's about editing other editor's comments, you asked for a diff, as soon as I got back on Wikipedia I supplied the diff... Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's worth pointing out (I don't think anyone has yet noticed) that the "final warning" that Cryptic posted on Legacypac's talk page, which BrightR has diffed here and elsewhere, is a post from eighteen months ago (March 2016). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

People on AN/I keep dismissing long-standing behavior issues because they're so old; well, AN/I is for long-standing behavior issues, and things that are long-standing are old by definition, aren't they? Since this behavior is ongoing (see the one that sparked my involvement, editing another editor's comment in a discussion after it was closed) then it seems appropriate to have AN/I address it. And get told that it's old and so it doesn't matter... Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe, MAYBE, you shouldn't run to ANI for every slight you see. Perhaps talking to an administrator you trust first? Maybe? Realm of possibility? Common sense? --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did... they told me to take it to AN... You know, like it says in Wikipedia policy. Maybe if AN/I doesn't want to discuss conduct issues it shouldn't be stated in policy that this is the place for conduct issues? Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? Because if this is the case, they need to be brought here to explain themselves... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Cryptic#Legacypac deleting.2C altering.2C and striking out other editors.27 comments. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose indefinite interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac

This whole kerfuffle was basically caused by DocumentError, who since his 5-month block in 2015 (regarding dealings with Legacypac) hsa largely left enwiki (one day of editing in 2016, one day and article in 2017 before this all began) and has now returned in full force to harass Legacypac (at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom cae and at other users talk pages). In January 2015, a voluntary interaction ban with Legacypac was set as the condition for an unblock, but the situarion at the eventual unblock in June 2015 is rather muddled, making a current block based on that interaction ban perhaps dubious. However, there is no reason at all not to reinstate (though this time not voluntary) the interaction ban to avoid more of this in the future. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. you proposal and your summation to my comment above, as it seems "Age shall not weary them". -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac - I see nothing to suggest a restriction needs to be placed on Legacypac. – Nihlus (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus, but if the consensus is otherwise for a two-way ban, this can be counted as a support for that, as a second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not BMK's kid of camp

-EEng

• I like to think that the only "camp" I'm in is the "improve Wikipedia" camp, and that all my decisions are based on an objective evaluation of the circumstances and evidence, but I'm as human as the next person, and as likely to give a break to someone I know has been in the "improve Wikipedia" camp as well, versus someone who appears to be editing for reasons of a personal grudge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one way IBAN--Per Nihlus.BMK has put the situation beautifully. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I understand the concerns expressed here about DocumentError's behavior. However, DocumentError has not yet commented in this thread and in fact has not edited in the last 24 hours. I am not a fan of procedure for its own sake, but it really would make more sense to allow DocumentError to respond before this discussion goes much further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad Thank you, and I appreciate your note. I apologize as I've been gone a few days and will probably not be around much after tomorrow for an unclear length of time. Per my note below, I don't really have any serious objections to an IBAN. LP and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years [57], and the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin. Ergo, an IBAN will essentially have no impact on my editing ability as we don't really interact currently. I'm mildly opposed to it for procedural reasons but it's really no biggie. DocumentError (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not seeing behaviour here that clearly rises to the level of harassment. DocumentError notes in their userspace that they are a student, which suggests an availability to edit which follows their recent pattern of absences, and as I noted above they appeared to go on a self-imposed exile after having their block log spoiled (deservedly) back in 2015. While it's unusual that their first edits back after having edited only sporadically since that time, and only most recently in May, were to comment on an open arbitration case where their supposed opponent had already commented, their edits to the Arthur Rubin arbitration case were relevant and on-topic. It's true that their comments there were directly refuting claims made by Legacypac, but they were under no restriction from doing so, they did so politely and with backing evidence, and their comments were accepted as case evidence by the committee clerks. And as far as I can tell their recent editing on user talk pages with respect to Legacypac have been reasonable criticism of another editor's behaviour, neither trolling, harassment, nor personal attacks. (ec with NewYorkBrad above)Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Involved Comment on Situation I researched the DocError situation last night and posted my findings at User_talk:Mkdw: [58] I don't believe that DocError is currently under a mandatory IBAN with me. I've been on self imposed avoidance of Doc Error since early 2015 (diffs available) and have not in any way sought interaction with them or until last night even looked at what they were up to since 2015. My findings are consistent with Johnuniq and User:PBS's analysis above. DocError has been operating as a nearly WP:SPA focused on conflict with me since January 2015. I have little else to say on the matter except sanctioning me over his activity is inconsistent with the facts. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN, if only because this formalizes the unblock condition and makes it clear what the community expects. While I appreciate NYB's suggestion that we might wish to wait for DocumentError's input, I think the situation is sufficiently clear (in that there arguably was a voluntary IBAN already) that there's really no need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. per above. Harassment is harassment, plain and simple. -FASTILY 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN (or two-way if that is all that can be achieved). DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post at User talk:BrightR#hang in there is pure battleground behavior. Wikipedia does not need people nipping the heels of an editor and supporting allies to further the battle. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way; no comment on anything else. One-way bans are routinely unhelpful, to a significant extent because they can be gamed. If DocumentError has done enough that sanctions are warranted, but Legacypac hasn't, it's time for a block. If both parties have unclean hands, then do a two-way ban or sanction neither of them. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• There appears to be no evidence of Legacypac pursuing DocumentError, yet it is obvious that DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post is part of a pattern (see Fram's comments above) of DocumentError pursuing Legacypac. The post is mild enough so that a block would be unusual, but the pattern shows an obvious need for resolution. If an admin would volunteer to issue a final warning, and then follow it up if needed, that would be fine. However, such an arrangement would be easy to game. It would be much cleaner to apply the wording of WP:IBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support although frankly a more perm solution would be preferred. At least a 1-way ban would prevent them posting nonsense such as their submission to the current AR arbcom case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN see plenty of reason to sanction DE, for stalking Legacypac in violation of the restriction agreed to when unblocked. I see no evidence to support making the IBAN mutual. False equivalency. David in DC (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN and Oppose any one-way IBAN Really I believe an one-way IBAN might just escalate the situation if LP doesn't act rationally, now this is not an assumption of any kind but one-way IBANs are severely restrictive and often more than less, it seeks to beat the point. The two-way IBAN is not a sanction I'd like to be placed on LP but I'd prefer if LP voluntarily accept it, just as means of clearing the cloud that is an IBAN when in effect. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

When DocError is required to leave me alone I will be able to continue to voluntarily ignore the other editor as I've done faithfully since at least January 2015 well before PBS put the IBAN as an ultimatum to DocError. I'd prefer not to have "the cloud that is an IBAN" over my head and I thank the editors who raised this issue at ANi without me bringing it. A 1-way allows DocError to explore other editing interests apart from acting as WP:SPA against me. Thank-you to those that suggested and support it. I don't need an editing restriction to ensure I act "rationally". Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I like the comment earlier about just blocking the person who is causing the problem and leave it at that. This project appears to have straightforward tools to combat disruption and transgression, along with the ability to craft custom solutions as needed. Block this DocumentError for harassment, caution BrightR for filing a bad report. Increase the sanction on either if the behavior is repeated. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would be inclined to support a one-way interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac only as minimal. Frankly, an indef block for DocumentError would be more fitting for someone who is currently only editing wikipedia to pursue a vendetta against another editor, which is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As for BrightR, having reviewed WP:CIVIL, the appropriate response to me seems to be a sternly worded warning that future frivolous or malicious ANI reports will be responded to with a block. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

discussion of typo
@Seth Kellerman: You wrote "Dreadstar" above, did you mean "DocumentError"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC) No clue how I made that error but I've amended my post, thanks for pointing it out. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac literally deleted another editor's comment off my talk page, edited a comment of mine, and struck out or deleted other editors' comments many times before. Just because you don't agree all of the examples provided are valid, doesn't make the fact that many of these are clear WP:TALKO violations and Legacypac was warned about them by admins before. "Frivolous and malicious" is altering other editor's comments and then pretending nothing happened. Bright☀ 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Accusation #1 involves an inappropriate comment by DocumentError that is a major reason there is strong support for a one way interaction ban against DocumentError. Accusation #2 is FALSE as described in the first section above by other editors, especially User:PBS. I did not edit BrightR's comment I actually edited User:Beyond My Ken's. name out of an ANi header BrightR created. We can forgive BrightR for misunderstanding the point, but after it has been explained as being within the rules it is not so forgivable for them to make the same accusation again, posted out of context away from the original diffs or the posts by others explaining how they are wrong. BrightR is acting in bad faith at this point in my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way per the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way per the above and especially the analysis by Legacypac at User_talk:Mkdw#I_went_digging_-_well_only_a_little Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm changing my !vote to Oppose because, as a party to the case, I'm concerned my original !vote could sound flippant, which is not my intent. I'm, therefore, !voting Oppose for purposes of good decorum.Support two-way ban per my comments below. Not sure how I even got dragged into this ANI thread, but, since I am - LP and I only have two pages of edit overlap in the last two years (one user talk page and an ArbCom evidence page) so an IBAN will pretty much have no impact on my (or LegacyPac's) editing ability. Ergo, I don't think either of us would object; at least I don't. Without !voting on a one-way, I guess that's probably no biggie, either. It's all good! DocumentError (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1-way IBAN and Support 2-way IBAN - Per Nyttend and QEDK's comments about being easy to game and resulting in escalation in problems. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support a one-way IBAN against DocumentError, especially taking note of Legacypac's comment here. Per DocumentError's own comment, it won't inhibit their article work, since "Legacypac and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years". If it does inhibit the kind of thing DocumentError has been doing in the Arthur Rubin RFAR, well, that's what we want. For those who dislike one-way IBANs on principle, if Legacypac should in any way seek contact with DocumentError, or bait them, several admins would be on Legacypac like a ton of bricks. In practice, then, a one-way IBAN works the same way as a two-way IBAN. It just avoids registering a "sanction" against the innocent party, which is desirable IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
• Support 1-way IBAN as best option, with a weak support for a 2-way if there's no consensus for a 1-way. It is exceedingly hard to assume good faith when an editor emerges from a post-block wikibreak or retirement or whatever you want to call it, and then exclusively pursue matters relating to a person they previously had issues with. I would be less skeptical if there were productive edits that didn't revolve around Legacypac, but there aren't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. This seems the simplest way to resolve matters at present. None of the three editors is blameless here (and hopefully LP and BR will not continue their problematic behavior), but the one who needs to be specifically restrained is DocumentError. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN - I came across DocumentError at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case, where one of the key points was an instance of admin abuse suffered by Legacypac. DE actually submitted into evidence a falsified defense of the admin abuse directed at Legacypac. Once I discovered the history and saw that this was obviously a personal grudge, I had to become involved just to provide a firsthand refutation of DE's lies. Arthur's about to get desysopped, but DE actually tried to cover for him when Legacy reported that he had been victimized. I repeat: DE tried to cover for him! He returned with a grudge after taking 2 1/2 years off. That's concerning. Frightening. To think that someone might actually hold a grudge against you for a petty on-wiki dispute, for that long, only to return years later and start harassing you over it. That's terrifying. @QEDK and Mr rnddude: respectfully, I don't think you guys are appreciating the gravity of the situation. This isn't two editors who can't get along. This is straight up harassment. Swarm ♠ 07:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My 0.02

This will be my one and only comment in this impressively expansive thread as much of the issues seem to be of a separate nature between LP and BrightR which I've been dragged into.
(A) The Current Situation

1. On September 24 I posted a comment to BrightR's Talk page.
2. Nine minutes later, User:Legacypac deleted it. [59]
3. This wasn't a GF copyedit, he simply unilaterally decided my Talk page comment was "inappropriate" (it wasn't) and deleted it.
4. I ignored LP's actions and took no action to restore my comment which LP had deleted/edited, even though I would have been within my rights to do so. He seemed very upset so I didn't want to antagonize him.
5. As BrightR has noted in their recitation, two different admins have previously given Legacypac "do or die" warnings about editing and deleting other editors Talk page comments. One admin who previously issued a last chance warning to LP is not active this month. The second admin reported they had an edit conflict with LP recently and didn't feel they could take action at this time due to it [60]. BrightR chose to bring this up to one of those admins. During that, I was pinged and I replied to that ping.

That's the start and end of my involvement in this.

(B) The Previous Situation Described in the IBAN Proposal

1. A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN on topics related to the Syrian Civil War [61]. The reason I would not agree to it is because I had only ever edited one page related to the Syrian Civil War - several months before - so TBAN'ing me, I thought, made no sense (and didn't to User:Reyk [62] and a number of other editors, either). I decided I would decline a "voluntary" TBAN as I was going to be off-Wiki for awhile anyway so it made sense to me that a block wouldn't be much of an issue for me.
2. The root of the issue seemed to have originated from a period where my user page was being vandalized with racial slurs [63] by IP editors. After Legacypac declared that I was an "anti-American" [sic] who was ruining his career as (I think?) a real estate agent ("damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much") [64], I strongly implied LP might be the IP editor in question. It was wrong to do that without conclusive evidence and I later apologized.
   

That said, I have no real problem with an IBAN - one way, or two way. Other than last week on BrightR's Talk page, LP and I have exactly one other page of overlap in the last two years (when we both gave evidence at ArbCom). So, an IBAN will have essentially no impact on my editing one way or the other. Ergo, it's fine with me. No objection here. DocumentError (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@ DocumentError you write "A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN" That is untrue and typical of the dissimulation that you practice (what is not clear to me is if you consciously and deceptively use it as a method of dissembling, or if you really believe what you write).

1. In Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment my wording was "I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by ..." that is not a TBAN but advise on how to avoid interaction.
2. Your account way not blocked by me because you would not agree to a TBAN. I blocked you account because you prevaricated and would not say whether you agreed or disagreed to a voluntary IBAN of six months duration (see the section "In ref to the ANI" in my talk page archives).

I warned you at the time "If you reject it, the consequences of that are unpredictable" and here we are with a permanent community IBAN very likely to come into force. In fact back when you started the ANI Harassment section you had just completed a short 36 hour block for by user:Bishonen with the comment "evasiveness is very disruptive" — enough said. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1. That is technically a voluntary topic ban. Futhermore, your block summary gives it away; the six months for the proposed ISIL ban expires put to her/him at the close of an ANI.
• 2. It's not a very voluntary proposal if a) not accepting it is met with threats of consequences, or, b) refusing to answer it, possibly because of the threat of consequences, is met with an indefinite block.
• Why is it that so many people think throwing bricks is an effective way to achieve their goals? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on DocumentError's dispute with Legacypac, but I thought what PBS did to him back then was a dick move. I still think so. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Mr rnddude indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks, and (by 7 March) it became obvious to me that DocumentError was not going to agree (to the ban) or disagree (and hence go back to another ANI), I simply changed the block to end of the day the voluntary iban would have ended (14 June 2015). -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• PBS, I brought it up because you were enforcing a, supposedly voluntary TBAN, as part of your block. The other part being the refusal to answer the question, which as I noted in point 2, was possibly due to the threat of consequences that eventually resulted in an indefinite block. Now, if you're mentioning this because you commuted the block, I am well aware, that's why I chose the commuted block summary to reference rather than the original indefinite one, which, was rather unhelpful; Until DocumentError agrees to answer a question put to her/him at the close of an ANI. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I wrote several paragraphs detailing why DocumentError's post is error filled, but deleted them as I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts. Evidence is clear he has been focused almost exclusively on harassing me since at least Jan 2015. An indef 1-way IBAN is preferable to an indef block because DocError will continue to have the ability to edit nearly everywhere and hopefully he will get over his obsession with me. I'd taken his talkpage off my watchlist and pretty much forgotten about him completely until he showed up at Rubin's ArbComm case to criticize me and defend Rubin when Rubin failed to WP:ADMINACCT himself. Legacypac (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Two page-points of interaction in three years - one of which you initiated - seems a very odd way for me to carry-out my "obsession" with you. As Ivanvector noted, I have been very restrained and polite in all my interaction and contact with you here, and elsewhere. I'd ask you could please, in-kind, limit the volume and rate of polemics like I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts and his obsession with me. I don't know if you plan to delete my comment or not as you have with others, however, I would simply ask you please consider its message first. Thank you. I appreciate, in advance, your willingness to work together on this. Best - DocumentError (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me be more plain. DocumentError typed a series of untrue statements in this ANi and the easiest thing to show is unwillingness to count correctly.

1. Rubin ANi The allegation made by Legacypac that Arthur Rubin's revocation of user rights constituted "unsubstantiated attacks," etc., is not - in my opinion - made with clean hands...,

2. BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [65].

3. Cryptic's talk another spot he followed me with critical comments plus [66] [67] [68] [69] and that makes three before BrightR started the ANi than

4. User Mkdw's talk In the last two years we have had exactly two pages in which there has been any interaction between us

Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one. Add in ANi to get 5 pages which is three more than the two pages he mentions to Mkdw.

DocumentError initiated interactions 1, 2 and 3 which happened before this ANi but makes his statement in response to Newyorkbrad "the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin" and "...we don't really interact currently" which ignores his posts to BrightR talk and Cryptic talk before the ANi started.

DocumentError refers to two interactions "one of which you initiated" - but I did not initiate any of the interactions, including the ANi. The only place I posted first was to Mkdw's talk and that was partly about DocumentError's "evidence" not trying interact with DocumentError.

I don't consider posting incorrect things to be "polite". I could go on refuting his posts, but I much prefer to have nothing to do with him.

Interestingly he has not addressed the central question of why he came out of retirement specifically to post against me at Rubin's ArbComm and BrightR's talk and Cryptic's talk - he just carries on throwing mud at ANi. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] It's time to end this. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [7].

• Wait - you're criticizing me for expressing concern you'd delete my Talk page comment when you then, in fact, actually did delete it? Hmmm.

Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one

• I was actually just going by what you said here: I have not interacted with DocumentError for about 3 years [78] Maybe you misspoke?

LP - you have been repeatedly told that my submission to ArbCom of rebuttal evidence to evidence you presented in an open case was entirely appropriate (e.g. here by Mkdw [79]). You have had your claim that me doing so was "inappropriate" repeatedly rejected. To then take your argument to ANI after Arbcom has rejected it is the exact definition of forum shopping. I know you don't like the evidence I submitted, and I'm truly sorry it's upset you so very terribly, but to continue to characterize it as "untrue" and "throwing mud" (in the face of multiple people patiently trying to explain to you it's neither of those things) is what I'm talking about when I'm asking you to please tone-down the polemics just a bit. People are allowed to disagree with you, including providing diffs to contextualize their disagreement. That doesn't mean we can't be respectful towards each other and treat each other civilly. Thank you for your understanding. DocumentError (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: DocumentError, it's plain as day that by pinging Legacypac in your comment on BrightR's talkpage and in the very same comment saying that he would probably delete the comment, you were baiting him. Whether he should have taken the bait is arguable, but the fact that you were the aggressor, with the ping and the aspersions and the thinly disguised dare (not to mention the stalking), is undeniable. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucky for everyone ArbComm has moved into decision phase where they have ignored DocumentError's "evidence" and are now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my, and several other editors, submissions. No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate, all that happened was ArbComm did not delete the submissions. I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up. Continual misrepresention is not helpful. Further at the top of this section we were promised there would be but one post hy DocumentError here, but, sadly, that was also a misrepresentation. When will an Admin close this unpleasantness up already? Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate we may need to agree to disagree, Legacypac. I hope you don't mind if I respond to your newest series of allegations with diffs?

• "now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my"

Actually, it appears your evidence is going to be dismissed as the basis for a finding of fact within the next few minutes when the Clerks wrap-up the closure, no? [80]

• "I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up."

Actually, yes, you did: [81]: "If editorial judgement is available please redact most of this statement as well [82] on a similar basis."

• "No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate"

Actually, yes, they did. Mkdw responded to your specific objection by counseling you that: "DocumentError is addressing Arthur Rubin's conduct which is defined within the case scope." [83]

Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I also said that DocumentError's submission to Arbcom was appropriate. If I didn't say it explicitly here, I have now said so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider pinging an editor "aggressive" but a customary requirement of WP:NOTIFY. As for the alleged, "stalking" - I'm not sure where you're getting that? Per Legacypac [84], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this week - in the last three years. This week, this is the extent of our interaction: [85]. That's a very unconventional interpretation of stalking, but maybe you have some diffs to support your allegation which I'm missing? DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hounding"

Since an editor invoked the word "stalking" (ed: but probably meant "hounding") I've noticed two other editors re-purpose it - sans diffs - as fait accompli. I think this has probably become Fact By Process of Repetition at this point (and I should have commented in the first few days of this ANI being opened to prevent that from happening) but, as a formality, I'd like to make sure the actual diffs are entered on the permanent record:

• Per Legacypac himself [86], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this week - in the last three years ("I have not interacted with DocumentError for about 3 years.")
• This week, this is the extent of our interaction: [87].

For further record of posterity, neither I nor Legacypac opened this ANI. The editor who opened the ANI (BrightR) presented a charge against Legacypac that is customarily subject to a perfunctory, long block, that is, that Legacypac was editing and deleting others Talk comments on pages other than his own, like here [88], and was doing so in violation of his two previous "last chances" originating from a pattern of WP:TPO violations he had engaged in: ([89] "Such edits are disruptive, and can lead to blocks or other negative actions. Please do not edit the talk page comments of others in such a way again"" & [90] "Do something like this again and I will block you from editing."). It was only at that point that I was suddenly pinged into this ANI and the conversation abruptly redirected to the un-diffed allegation of my "stalking" Legacypac. And, while User:Newyorkbrad and User:Ivanvector initially responded saying they saw no such thing, this was quickly overcome by the influx of several editors from the Friends & Family plan to which I haven't subscribed yet ([91], [92]) repeating the word "stalking" without diffs until it was simply a point of common knowledge and could be accepted as fact. DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• • For the record, I never opined one way or the other on the merits of the complaints here, and I haven't looked at them. (That is deliberate, in case any part of the broader situation involved here were to come to arbitration.) What I did say was that the discussion shouldn't start reaching conclusions about a potential sanction involving you until you had a reasonable opportunity to respond, which you now have done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Newyorkbrad - sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant to refer to BURob's comment vis a vis Legacypac's WP:TPO violations. Your name was copy-pasted by accident and I've struck it. I apologize for the error on my part. DocumentError (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Please don't use "stalking" when you mean WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Ivanvector, you're correct. I was responding to the terminology two other editors have used in this thread but I should have corrected their errors in my explanatory to invoke appropriate terminology instead of just putting the word stalking in "quotes". I've added an edit to my initial message, above. DocumentError (talk) 16:29, 4 October 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.

Diruptive editing by User:954482ab

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:954482ab is engaged in continuous data and references removal or pov pushing. The article Baselios Yeldo is the best example for the user's disruptive editing. Have given multiple warning in his talkpage by different users. but this user is not ready to listen. Please check and take necessary actions.- 223.186.221.98 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely; we'll see if they talk to anyone. And for next time, 223.* (hopefully there won't be a next time), the big red note at the top of the page says you should have notified the editor of this thread. I've folded that into the block notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 5 October 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.

WilliamJE, once 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.

---

Would someone mind enforcing this interaction ban on WilliamJE? For several years, he's been following me to random articles that I'd just edited (articles that he'd never before edited), as has been documented repeatedly in this page's archives as well as in places like here and here.

Just about a year ago, after being warned by Jehochman that disruption related to me left him dangerously close to being indefinitely blocked, he created an ANI thread against me, but it boomeranged, as you can see from the link in my first sentence. Since then, I've repeatedly noticed him following me to random articles as before, but with no technical violation of the ban (merely WP:HOUND, but not confronting me directly), I didn't want to raise the issue. However, when your first edit to an article is removing a category that I'd just added, you've crossed the bright line of "revert in one way or another his edits", to quote both WP:IBAN and the warning he was given upon the ban's imposition. It's not ordinary maintenance of this nonexistent category, since ordinary maintenance would involve replacing the error with the actual category, not removing it. Note that the diff I cited is one of several ban violations right around the same time: he also made the same edit (again, his first edit to each page) in two other cases, [93] and [94]. I've not put the right category into these articles yet, because I've maintained a policy of treating this as a two-way interaction ban as long as I can remember; I've not edited his talk page in two years until leaving note of this thread, and I've intentionally stayed away from discussions involving him in any way, e.g. when he started an XFD with a rationale with which I completely agreed. If I've started any interactions with him since he was banned, I don't remember it.

When you've been blocked for a battleground mentality, you're nearly indef-blocked for such, and you get a community-imposed boomerang ban for such, you're on thin ice. When you keep it up in direct defiance of the ban, it's time to enforce the ban. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend fails to mention a few things. 1- I edited three other Virginia articles before Cliff Kill. That's how I came into that article. 2- I routinely unlink articles to non-existent categories. My last 5,000 contributions[95] list over 30 such edit summaries and nearly 100 in my last 10,000 with the edit summary 'removed link to non-existent category'. I found the first wrongly linked page, went to the page, saw there were two others there, and removed all three. Nyttend is not correct when he says 'It's not ordinary maintenance of this nonexistent category, since ordinary maintenance would involve replacing the error with the actual category, not removing it.' WP:REDNOT says 'An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.' I remove them and my removing them or other violations of REDNOT have been discussed on my talk page[96] or at Administrator Sphilbrick's[97] to name at least two occasions. Here's a third occasion[98] and its just this week. WP:Seealso redlinks are also covered under REDNOT (aka 'Red links generally are not included in See also sections',) . Category work is obvious as one of my main interests around here if anyone seriously scrutinizes my edit history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Your message here indicates you know you violated your interaction ban but you feel you have permission to do it. User:Jo-Jo Eumerus told you that you're not allowed to "revert in one way or another [Nyttend's] edits" and, per WP:BANEX, REDNOT was not listed as an exception. Can you show where, either in policy or from administrators, you found the right to violate your interaction ban, which was instituted because of your behavior, not your content work? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't know I reverted anything he did. I didn't know he worked on the articles. Do you realize both Cliff Kill and Locust Hill (Locust Dale, Virginia)- my edit three edits back, are both categorized 'Category:National Register of Historic Places in Madison County, Virginia'? I came from one to the other. And I visited Big Meadows Site and The Homeplace articles but didn't make edits to those because they didn't need any and both are Category:National Register of Historic Places in Madison County, Virginia entries. My firefox page history for today....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not productive. Swarm ♠ 06:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@WilliamJE: I suppose you can hope administrators assume good faith but you're exhibiting the exact behavior you've kept up for years and years while you kind of go through a list of reasons you're permitted to do it, hoping something sticks. You seem to realize that REDNOT isn't a valid reason to violate your ban. Well, what about unawareness? Uh, well, that's also not a listed exception at BANEX. Are you willing to admit that you violated it? Because accepting that you need a block might ensure it's not indefinite. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Your behavior in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. WilliamJE's explanation is perfectly plausible. Your claim that unawareness is somehow not an acceptable explanation here is patent nonsense. He should not be expected to check the edit history of every article he edits to make certain that Nyttend has not edited it recently. Your aggressive behavior towards WilliamJE in this thread indicates that you have a prior ax to grind. While IPs are permitted to participate in these discussions, many of us tend to look with suspicion on an IP who jumps into a dispute between two other editors and immediately takes a strong stance on the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC) @Lepricavark:Your behavior in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. So? WilliamJE's explanation is perfectly plausible. True. That it's plausible goes less to its accuracy and more to the efficacy of his longstanding, markedly successful cycle where he stalks Nyttend, reverts Nyttend, then lies when questioned. (Like the NOTRED excuse, which he stopped the second he realized it wasn't going to save him from a block.) But say you're right and his explanation is true. It's still him admitting he violated his interaction ban. Look: Your claim that unawareness is somehow not an acceptable explanation here is patent nonsense. He should not be expected to check the edit history of every article he edits to make certain that Nyttend has not edited it recently. Just copy and paste the text from WP:IBAN or BANEX that says an interaction banned editor, if he has a plausible explanation, is permitted to violate it. From IBAN: "Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to...undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." Where in this policy, specifically the word "any," is this wiggle room absolving him of taking two seconds to check the edit history before he replicates the same completely inappropriate behavior he's been up to for years? Your aggressive behavior towards WilliamJE in this thread indicates that you have a prior ax to grind. You gave yourself a way out by using the word "indicates." That was smart! Doesn't make your implication any less of a lie but whatever. I don't owe you an explanation but again, whatever. I'm a bored person wandering around ANI. That's it. While IPs are permitted to participate in these discussions, many of us tend to look with suspicion on an IP who jumps into a dispute between two other editors and immediately takes a strong stance on the matter. I'm looking at you saying "many of us" and wondering if you know that multiple people aren't allowed to use one username. Because what else could you be on about? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I'm a bored person wandering around ANI. That's it. Where does it say, in the banner at the top of any of the administrators' noticeboards, that bored editors are welcome to intervene? Last I checked, 10 seconds ago, the banner says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Where does it say ... that bored editors are welcome to intervene? Probably in the same place where it says that editors with less than 7,000 total edits in two years -- only 22% of which are to articles -- get to comment freely in Wikipedia space and rack up 29.4% of their edits there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC) BMK - I don't pretend to have written the most articles or spend the most amount of time doing so. I edit in mainspace for one of two reasons; a) expanding an article to a GA (I'm okay at this - currently have one up for GA) or b) anti-vandal patrolling. I am no good at doing small scale editing, writing short articles, or copy-editing (indeed, articles I work on are always in desperate need of it). My mainspace edits are highly inflated, to be honest, it's probably more like 12-14% if you exclude Huggle and Twinkle (can't find it on xtools now, it just changed, but, there's about 600 edits with those tools) for anti-vandal patrolling. I am much better at say AfD or talk space (17.5% of my edits). I could, within a week, bring it up to 50% by doing an hour of huggle a day, but, what's the point, it wouldn't be an accurate representation of how I work. If this bothers you so be it, if you have specific concerns (such as me fucking up) then I am happy to address them. Recently I got myself caught in a pointless dispute with another editor, am trying to avoid doing so again. Otherwise; carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I'm not trying to get into a dispute with you, I think you have every right to comment here, and people can certainly contribute to the project in ways other than editing in mainspace. My point is that by the criteria I used for that comment, I could make a credible case for your not becoming involved here, and I did so in the hope that you might reconsider your comment to the IP that they shouldn't "intervene" because they were just a "bored editor". I don't think it's any fairer to judge the IP by that passing remake then it is to judge you by a set of criteria which really has nothing to do with whether one can comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Ah, thank you for clarifying BMK. It's not so much that the IP has rendered an opinion and I have decided to take issue with they're comment about being bored. Rather, it's that's they appear to be getting into this, to have at it, because they are bored. Note, their response to Lepricavark was full of the same passive-aggression that Lepricavark noted in their response to WilliamJE. That is non-constructive in my opinion. I guess my comment was agressive too, then. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I'll reframe my comment to the IP with less snark. If you have input, you are welcome to leave it here. If you intend to get at it with disputants or other editors, that won't be constructive to the case and could make things worse. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• The reason we have interaction bans is to prevent certain editors interacting. There is literally no defense available for the above. William is under a ban that prevents him interacting with Nyttend due to an extensive history of following him around. He knowingly broke it. There are none of the usual BLP/Copyvio exceptions here (and I would be shocked if Nyttend had made some). Can an admin take the appropriate action please. An interaction ban is the *end* point for when polite (and more explicit) warnings have had no effect on one (or both) editors. At this time they should be blocked until they undertake to a)abide by the ban, b)indicate they understand why they have been blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• What leads you to the conclusion that he knowingly broke the ban? That conclusion assumes that WilliamJE is straight up lying. Lepricavark (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

He knew he had the interaction ban. He removed the addition of a category just added by the person he is banned from interacting with - and not just once. It is not a credible argument that he didn't know he was reverting an edit by an editor he is banned from interacting with. He is under an interaction ban for precisely doing just that. If he is saying that his editing means he cannot tell in advance who he is reverting, then WP:CIR is an issue and he should be banned from making any edits to categories until he can learn to read an edit history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The version of events presented by WilliamJE is a perfectly plausible one and there is simply no need for the assumption of bad faith. Moreover, it's frankly inappropriate to make such a groundless accusation of CIR issues. CIR is far too often applied to perfectly competent editors and it has basically become a community approved personal attack. Maybe you always check an edit history before removing red-linked categories or doing similar maintenance tasks, but to me that is not a reasonable expectation. Lepricavark (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that a showing of violating an I-ban requires proof of intent. It's clear that WilliamJE broke the ban, so it's rather irrelevant -- unless it was a first occurrence and admins wanted to give him a break -- whether he did so knowingly or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think content is relevant. It isn't formally in the rules, it ought to be.

This discussion pains me, because I've worked with both editors. I probably said this before, but both are hard-working editors working to improve the encyclopedia. For whatever reason, they don't play well together. I assume that's what led to the interaction ban.

Both show a lot of interest in articles associated with the NRHP. William does a lot of gnomelike work including as he mentions, removing links to nonexistent categories.

If you are going from article to article in the NRHP universe, looking for things that need improvement, it is understandable that one might come across an article with a red linked category, which is an easy fix.

In most cases, the removal can occur in seconds. However, because of the existence of the I-ban, When was expected not to simply remove it but to checked the history to find out who added it on the tiny chance it was added by someone with the I-ban. In most situations I won't be the case, but that turns an edit that should take seconds into one that might take minutes which is a big deal when doing thousands of them.

I get that William has the I-ban and therefore has to take that responsibility, but it sure would be nice if we could find a better solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, so let's review. Nyttend was editing some articles about esoteric archeological sites in Virginia and was inadvertently typing "in" instead of "of" in a category he was adding to the articles, rendering them redlinks. In spite of the fact that these articles commonly receive no views per day, William showed up on the very same day to remove the redlinks. Nyttend says this is an IBAN violation. In his defense, William says it was simply a coincidence, and that he was already involved in the subject area, the nonexistent cat caught his eye, and being someone involved with category maintenance, he removed the redlinks as he normally would (whether they should have been fixed or removed is irrelevant). In short, he claims that they unwittingly crossed paths while working in the same subject area, in a manner that could have happened to anyone. Yes, as some have suggested, it appears at face value to be a he-said he-said that requires us to err in favor of William's reasonable explanation, per WP:AGF. But let's examine the history, just to be sure:
  • September 2 Nyttend adds a redlinked category to an unknown article. Nobody notices.
  • September 2 Nyttend adds another redlinked category to another unknown article. Again, nobody notices.
  • 01:27 October 5 Nyttend adds the same redlinked category a third time to another unknown article.
  • 15:11, 15:12, 15:13 William enters the subject area of historic locations of Virginia with a handful of minor edits.
  • 15:15, 15:19, 15:21 William removes the categories added by Nyttend, starting with the one he added earlier that day, and makes no further edits in the subject area.
• So, if William's story is to be believed, he coincidentally became active within the specific subject area of National Register of Historic Places listings in Madison County, Virginia shortly after Nyttend, and within 5 minutes, ended up on Nyttend's recently-written, and completely unknown article Cliff Kill Site to remove a redlink that just so happened to be at the top of Nyttend's contributions at the time. No one is looking at that article. I do think we should forgive unintentional, good-faith IBAN violations, of course. But I don't buy that he just so happened to come across that specific article, mere hours after Nyttend expanded it. WP:DUCK.
• The alleged problem here, of William stalking Nyttend over the course of years, is not in question. It was already so bad that he was threatened with an indefinite block, despite being a highly established editor. When he complained about the threat, he was slapped with a one-way IBAN. One-way IBANs are not some casual remedy against two editors who can't get along, but an extraordinary anti-harassment measure. This is a huge project. It's not hard to avoid someone, especially if they're working on a page that usually gets 0-1 views per day. This is a long-term problem that exists, and that has been remedied by the community, so I'm going to enforce it. It gives me no joy to block an established editor but we can't just let stalking take place just because an editor says "oops". Swarm ♠ 20:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame. Guess I shouldn't have taken WilliamJE's defense at face value, but based on my prior experience with him, I wanted to believe he was innocent of wrongdoing. This does not vindicate the above IP, who was simply spouting nonsense, but it is now very hard to believe that WilliamJE simply made a mistake. After his block ends, I hope he can let his issues with Nyttend go and resume editing productively. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I myself was inclined to believe him, Lepricavark, I figured we'd just be letting it slide with a reminder to be more careful. Unfortunately, his actions clearly supported the notion that he's still stalking Nyttend's edits, rather than that it was an innocent mistake. Swarm ♠ 20:48, 6 October 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.

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.

---

An anonymous user (here) is rapidly making similar changes to articles on Kurdish/Assyrian topics. This is not at all my area, so I can't be sure it's vandalism. Could someone else please see to this? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Not exactly vandalism, just POV pushing. I've reverted all of the edits and left a note for the IP user. Alex Shih^Talk 04:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: That was lightning fast. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 04:35, 6 October 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.

Theshibin

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:Theshibin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possibly promotional editing, but also user harrassment (blanking their pages repeatedly). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:43, 6 October 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.

Communication and sourcing concerns

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've been patrolling new pages and as I was searching by keywords, I cam across a group of articles created by Alldinna Rui. Most were less than two lines long (which is fine), but not marked as stubs, lacking wikilinks and the only important point, not clearly referenced. As I reviewed them, I tagged them as stub and refimprove or needing more inline citations. I messaged Alldinna Rui to ask if the 'external links' section is actually a list of the sources rather than friendly suggestions, and if so, if the title could be used as 'notes', 'references' or 'sources', so it's clear to the reader and other editors. This is all routine patrolling and didn't need to be a big deal, but having references is important and it is unclear whether it has sources poorly labelled or none at all, and I was happy to help resolve the issue.

Alldinna Rui has not responded to any of the messages, which have included links to WP:COMMUNICATE. I sent a message entitled 'Warning' yesterday, again asking the editor to please communicate and please answer my question about whether the external links were actually sources. Alldinna Rui had not created any new articles in a week, but then created 24 articles today (so far!), and went through articles I'd tagged, removing refimprove tags [99], and giving no edit summary. When I re-added it with the edit summary: 'Please do not remove tags with no edit summary giving a reason and no attempt to address the issue', the editor did exactly the same thing again on the same article, which is clear edit warring. I messaged Alldinna Rui about this, but no reply. I'm not here in the hope of getting huge sanctions for Alldinna Rui, just needing some help encouraging Alldinna Rui to see that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia and that sourcing is important and to slow down/stop creations (24 so far today is a lot! Especially when issues have been raised). Ignoring my messages and removing tags without giving a reason is disruptive editing. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also seems to be using the IP 111.94.213.156, which is making the same edits to the same articles. PamD added multiple issues tags to Pluit (Transjakarta) (where I had twice added tags but then left it) but this IP just reverted them, no discussion. Looks like WP:DUCK. Its edits for at least the last month appear to all be on articles also edited by Alldina Rui [100].Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've rolled back the IP's tag-removal edits of today, and left a warning about removing maintenance tags, but I see they created a vast number more of these no-context, no-links, no-footnotes stubs for bus stations (bus stops?) in Jakarta. Dubious notability. No links from dab pages (usually if I'm stub-sorting Pluit (Transjakarta) I'd check for a hatnote or dab page link from Pluit, but I just lost the enthusiasm faced with this flood of poor stubs. PamD 09:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that Zulfikar Dwi Putra created a lot of very similar articles to those created by Alldinna Rui and wonder whether there's any sockpuppetry here, or just a group of enthusiasts working on the same bus network. PamD 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If this was several pages, we could sit down and try harder to get the attention of the user. But this was mass creation of 134 pages (if I am counting correctly) in a very short period of time, and every page that I looked through had the same issues (no reference, no direct verification and no indicator of notability). For the time being, I've ran a mass deletion of recent creation by the user, and I am going to ping Arifin.wijaya who seem to be knowledgeable about this subject (administrator on id.wiki, familiar with Transjakarta), and hopefully they can communicate with Alldinna Rui so that we can come up with a solution. Alex Shih^Talk 09:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PamD and Alex Shih. Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 6 October 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.

Flathead engine

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.

---

Currently, there is an edit war going on in the article on the Flathead engine. Me, User:Andy Dingley and User:1292simon are involved. I removed an unreferenced section (WP:V, WP:NOR) from the article. Also, I explained why I believe that the section was Original research (I tried finding reliable sources); see the talk page. However, Andy Dingley and 1292simon re-added that unreferenced section to the article. 1292simon knows that the section is unreferenced as well as most likey original research and still adds it, because he believes it is correct. This is highly disruptive editing: Adding false information on purpose and igonring the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. Since I don't want to contribute to an edit war, I request administrative action. Unfortunately, they seem to know that content must be added to articles only if there is evidence but they ignore it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: There is an ongoing discussion on AN about Johnjoy violating his topic ban on editing anything automobile related. Nihlus 10:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, you are violating the six-month topic ban that was imposed less than three months ago. I am going to reset the timer on that ban for another six months effective today. Please don't make any further edits to Flathead engine and drop the stick before you get blocked. A Train^talk 11:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies -- I misread the topic ban and realized my mistake when I went to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions to reset the clock. Given that User:Jojhnjoy is in knowing violation of an indefinite ban and has evaded all questions posed to him regarding his knowledge of said ban both on the Flathead engine talk page and on AN, I am going to block him for 24 hours. I am also going to move forward the date of his earliest appeal to six months from now. A Train^talk 11:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This revenge-motivated ANI is completely unjustified. Jojhnjoy, please stop wasting the time of other editors and the admins. 1292simon (talk) 12:08, 6 October 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.

Disruptive editing by User:Ehr1Ros2

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Ehr1Ros2 has been linking miscellaneous words in the text of the article Hans Ehrenberg to other random pages not relevant to the article. Some examples of these links, all contained in just one of the affected sentences are as follows:

• travels linked to 1909
• lands- linked to art
• voyages linked to 1918
• seas linked to Sea of Japan
• oceans linked to Rio de Janeiro
• communications linked to mayor
• extended linked to magistrate
• countries linked to Paradesi Synagogue
• all linked to American Express
• continents linked to Capetown

The user also re-instated paragraphs of text previously deleted from the article to the talk page, where he continued to edit in this fashion. All of these edits were removed and the user warned, but the removal of these edits was then reverted and the disruptive actions continue unabated.

Disruptive edits (diffs): 1 2 3 4 5

Warnings (diffs): 1 2 3

For your consideration, Loopy30 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the user link. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-addition of that problematic overlinking, and I've also removed a few more examples that seem common enough terms - that article was a sea of blue (and still is to a large extent). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also given them a link to WP:Overlink, and let's see how they respond. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not just ordinary over-linking though, I can revert that easily enough. It is the inclusion of stream-of-consciousness or random word association used to select the link targets in the first place. As far as the user's reaction to requests for change, when I reverted earlier he posted a message to my talk page requesting that I stop editing philosophy articles because they were beyond my understanding (see warning diff #3). Also, he is using the article's talk page as a place to keep his deleted edits "alive" instead of using his sandbox (as suggested) for these test-edits. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, that particular set of links was bizarre. I'll have to leave the talk page issue for someone else to look at, but this noticeboard has many watchers so I'm sure someone will help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this relates to that stupid game where everything comes back to philosophy? John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. Well, we certainly shouldn't leave the unfortunate Loopy30 to try to deal with this unreasonable editor alone. See also the warnings about the same thing that Ehr1Ros2 has blanked. I've blocked them for 72 hours for disruptive editing. John from Idegon, maybe one link suggests everything's philosophy, but various things and people, according to this editor, are also the Ten Commandments, Student exchange programs (!) and the like. If they have a good-faith explanation, they can provide it in an unblock request. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC).

---

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

CANVASSing by AussieLegend

In a follow-up discussion to an RfC at Talk:Family Guy, I pointed out to AussieLegend that supporters of his proposal had not opposed other suggestions. In response, AussieLegend posted the following to four users who had indicated support for his proposal: User:SMcCandlish, User:QEDK, User:A D Monroe III, and User:Beyond My Ken:

Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

—Both wordings quoted are ones AussieLegend has been promoting, and indicate a clear case of WP:CANVASSing to influence the outcome of the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

sigh! Please review the RfC at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence and the discussion that lead to it. Curly Turky has been resisting the outcome of the RfC, which was to remove the word "adult" and come up with some alternate wording. We started off with the alternate wording "animated sitcom for adults" which progressed to variants of "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". As explained here, in the current discussion there have been 11 participants. Of those, six expressed a preference for one or both of the proposed wordings while three made no comment on wording, one made general comments but nothing specific and another only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink. That all six of the editors who commented on the wording expressed support for one of the proposed options, including Curly Turky,[101] is inconsequential to Curly Turky; he claims there is nothing like a consensus.[102] Given his opposition and denial, I felt it appropriate to ask those who had expressed support whether they still felt that way. Note that I asked them to confirm whether or not (i.e. they were given the option to state either support or opposition) they still supported the proposed wording. Also, only actual participants of the discussion were asked. Opinions were not sought from anyone else. If we want to talk about canvassing, let's look at the opening sentence of the discussion when he pinged everyone except me and then, as an afterthought, used a fake excuse to justify doing so.[103]

Finally, I will point out that this entire situation has arisen because Curly Turky took exception to the word "adult", which he equates with "porn".[104] Personally, I find the whole thing to be right in WP:LAME territory, even if it didn't involve an edit war. Curly Turky seems to be working hard to avoid a positive outcome and his report here is an example of this, as is his latest response at the discussion,[105] which avoids answering a simple question. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I will assess the whole situation and offer my full opinion sometime, but for now, I feel there was canvassing, primarily because he chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his but I wouldn't regard it as just that because also to note, I think we'd comment on the discussion anyway (atleast me, because it's on my watchlist) and also my views didn't exactly align with the alleged canvasser's so that's there too. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • He chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his is rather misleading. Other than Curly Turky, who was still very actively involved with the discussion and therefore did not need to have his preference confirmed, I asked ALL of the editors who had made comment on the specific wording proposals. The remaining editors were:

• Damotclese - Only involvement was to agree with me regarding the initial pinging of participants.[106] If I canvassed surely this would be one person I'd seek out?
• Izno - Did not participate in the discussion at all. Just collapsed a part of the discussion.[107]
• Montanabw - made some suggestions but wasn't clear on the wording and stated no preference as to precise wording. He was clear that he was flexible on wording.[108]
• Softlavender only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink.[109]
• WhatamIdoing Made comment about Curly Turky not pinging me, reformatted some text and suggested that Curly Turky boldly add the information to the body of the article, which Curly Turky refused to do.[110]

If the aim had been to canvass then there were clearly others "on my side" but that obviously wasn't the aim. It was simply to obtain clarification of the discussion participants feeling on the proposed wording as it had changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your intentions per se, but pointing out what maybe regarded as canvassing. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't the obvious solution to change the lead to "...an American animated sitcom aimed at adults..." Now have you heard? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: Already analyzed among all available approaches, and assessed as awkwardly, annoyingly alliterative.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've been in the thick of this, trying to moderate and produce a compromise. There are two issues at stake: 1) what exact wording to use, since using "is an adult animated sitcom" might imply something X-rated to some readers (this was the conclusion of the RfC above that discussion), and 2) whether to move this demographic out of the lead sentence, especially since some people wnat to expand on it with additional sources that may indicate a broader intended audience, and already-found sources that indicate is has a broader audience whatever the authorial/studio intent might be. I think that if some variant of the wording AussieLegend prefers (e.g. "targeted at an adult audience") is used, but moved to a second sentence specifically about demographics and marketing, that the entire issue goes away. For reasons I outlined here, I think the testiness of the discussion (an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN might be in order) has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing, e.g. to retain some wording like this in the lead sentence no matter what, versus not having it anywhere in the lead at all, and so on.

  It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey. While this could have had a canvassing effect, for my part I showed up and just re-urged compromise.

  PS: It's routine to do a follow-on RfC to resolve the questions not resolved in the original RfC. I've put an RfC tag on the follow-on discussion at Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, notified all the earlier-RfC participants not notified yet, and also posted a pointer to the discussion at Talk:The Simpsons, since similar wording at the The Simpsons has been the subject of repeated bouts of flat-out revert-warring. Hopefully this is enough to foster a clean and quiet resolution. :-)
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • SMcCandlish has indeed been a level head in all this, and his contributions are appreciated. However, there are a couple of minor points that I feel the need to clear-up:

• an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN - that was WhatamIdoing, who is not an administrator. Curly Turkey and I have edited quite a few of the same pages but, as far as I can remember, until this discussion I don't think we've ever had any direct interaction. Frankly, I don't think I want to again.
• has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing - not the case on my part. I was happy for the RfC closer to implement his outcome but Curley Turkey just seems to want to drag this on, and on, reverting the closer's edits. We seem to have some wording that multiple editors are happy with and I'm just waiting for Curley Turkey to explain why that's not what we should use. I've had to ask twice now,[111][112] this time. In short I simply don't see the advantage in breaking one simple sentence into multiple.
• It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey - As I've said, I asked all editors who had commented on specific wording. I didn't see the point in annoying editors who had made no comment on the wording, or no comment at all.

Otherwise, SMcCandlish seems correct. Hopefully, the new RfC will resolve issues but, as I indicated on SMcCandlish's talk page, I have my doubts that we can come to a quiet resolution. And yes, I still think the whole thing is lame. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't realize WhatamIdoing isn't an admin; I confused that editor's official WMF role with being an admin (I have a fairly dim and short-term memory for usernames, roles, and who said what). (I cultivate this selective forgetfulness on purpose, since it thwarts grudge-matching and drama.) On the second point, I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence, just as CT has been sending mixed signal about whether it should at least remain in the lead section. These seem like isometric "political" pushing to me on both sides (i.e. WP:WINNING). I'm fairly certain you could live with the demographic material in a second or later sentence and CT could live with it in the lead section somewhere, and no one else will GaF. :-) Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants to come back and help resolve the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC). Revised, 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence - Actually I specifically said Keeping it in the lead sentence is consistent with WP:TVLEAD and the way that we write TV articles. Moving it somewhere else just leads to writing multiple words when a couple will do. Why overcomplicate the text when simplicity works? You're not being paid by the letter.[113]

Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants - I resisted doing that because of the possible ramifications, for example such as the response from Edgarde, who wrote I don't wish to argue this issue any further and request no more pings. Some people just want to comment in an RfC and have no further involvement. Edgarde is obviusly one of those. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Damotclese, too, now that I look at some of the "venty" posts on that page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note: this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute. I didn't seek support for my position nor opposition for AussieLegend's in the report. This is about the canvassing, which is the only thing that would concern ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Definitely canvassing Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording. QEDK just said they supported a change from the status quo, presumably per CT's original proposal. Monroe explicitly supported "targeting teens and adults" or equivalent. BMK actually opposed the proposal to change the status quo and clarified in his third comment that "for adults" would work as well. SMcC presented a couple of alternate proposals himself, so claiming that he explicitly supported AL's exact wording is wrong, although more than a month later I wouldn't blame SMcC for forgetting that that is the case (read: AL's message was misleading, perhaps deliberately so). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't oppose the specific wording that was at issue, I just prefer a minor copyedit to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  What you support is not at issue—the wording of the message advertises AussieLegend's intentions to CANVASS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm just clarifying Hijiri's assessment of what I was/am supporting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording - That doesn't make sense. Why would one canvass users who did not support the wording? Wouldn't it make more sense to canvass users who supported the position? In any case, as I have said over and over, I sought clarification from ALL editors who had commented on the wording and asked them to clarify their current opinion as the initial text had changed. This was necessary because Curley Turkey was ignoring the discussion and using comments in the now ended RfC to justify his position that the text should move. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I should add that Hijiri88 is obviously looking at the RfC and not comments made in the subsequent discussion. In the RfC Monroe did indeed support ""targeting teens and adults" but in the subsequent discussion said I wouldn't bother to object to "for/toward adults", or adding "and teens", in any form. Similarly, BMK wrote in the subsequent discussion Agree with the above "animated sitcom for adults", which is the wording used in the note I left. SMcCandlish also wrote Use "animated sitcom for adults". The message was not misleading at all, it is supported by what editors actually said. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Does it matter? Don't forget that Wikipedia is volunteer work, editors agree to RFC calls which take their time, and most (if not all) of us have real jobs, so tagging editors just because you feel that your "side" in an RFC debate was not fully covered fairly is an imposition upon volunteers. The issue of "canvassing" is utterly irrelevant when it happens. Nobody dies, it's not the end of the world and yet canvassing happens a lot. Most editors engaged in Wikiwar accept the RFC comments and move on professionally, they don't go back and complain about "canvassing" and they don't waste editor's time pinging previous editors. Point being, stop accusing people of canvassing, please, and move on professionally. If you can not, please leave me out of your petty disputes. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• As one of the "canvassed" editors, this pretty much describes what I feel about it. I found it useful to be told there was still a discussion ongoing on the talk page (which I do not have watchlisted), and that my support was not clear to others. Frankly, while I did use AussieLegend's wording, if I had not agreed with it, rest assured that I am fully capable of writing my own. Granted, a neutral comment along the lines of "A discussion you may be interested in is taking place on Talk:Family Guy" would have been preferable, policy-wise, but either it or the actual comment would have had the same effect on me. For this reason, I would say that I'm opposed to any sanctions being imposed on AussieLegend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• My attempt to broker compromise hasn't been very effective.  — SMcCandlish ☏¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sadly, that's very true. Attempts to get Curly Turkey to provide a proper draft of his proposed wording have failed. Instead the responses are vitriole and personal attacks,[114][115] despite SMcCandlish's attempts to lighten the mood.[116] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Why is this even in the first sentence of these articles. Hard to reach a consensus for awkward openings like this. RfC should have a normal lead sentence to ponder over.--Moxy (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent OR issues with Gianluigi02

• Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gianluigi02 appears unable or unwilling to properly cite sources and to follow WP:NOR. This user persistently adds content to terrorism related lists where the sources given do not support inclusion or do not support ascribing an event to a particular group like ISIL. For example, yesterday Gianluigi02 are an entry [117] and claimed the Taliban were suspected. The source given doesn't ascribe the event to the Taliban, in fact it didn't event mention the Taliban at all and says, "No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks in Herat or Kapisa." See also Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_September_2017#Gianluigi02

Gianluigi02 has been warned about a dozen times on their user talk page for this behavior. They were once blocked by NeilN for this very behavior. They have never once responded to the warnings or block. In fact, they fail to comminate; of their 2000+ edits on the English Wikipedia, only one did they ever use a talk page ([118]).

Whether CIR or DIS issues, this user is causing problems and not showing any signs of change. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Been nearly 24 hours. Pinging Doug Weller who is at least familiar with this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Their last edit did have a source, but it was the Daily Mail and was reverted. I've told them they must respond here. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Their edits often have sources, but those sources most of the times don't support the text of the edit or, as with the most recent edit, do not use reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I know, which is why I told them to respond here. I'll watch to see what they do. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It appears they are not interested in communicating since they've edited again but not replied here ([119]). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: and no response here or at their talk page. Blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerning edit from Atlanta IP

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 [120]. I reverted the edit in Huggle but then I realized the significance of the page the text had been added to. Not sure how seriously to take it, and for now I'm not notifying the user of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Revision deleted pending WMF action, in the future these reports should follow the procedure set out in WP:EMERGENCY -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks There'sNoTime. I don't have email set up on here so it wasn't possible for me to follow the above at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough then, thank you for promptly bringing this to our attention -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:24, 7 October 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.

Off-wiki request

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Footyfan887 has been vandalising various pages and cyber bullying members of bigfooty.com are you able to run a checkuser on the account and if possible email support@bigfooty.com the results so we can take action against the user on our site and potential further action as using the internet to harass is a criminal offence here. Thank you

Sterge10 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not quite see what you want but I blocked the user as an obvious vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It would, I think, be a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation’s privacy policy to release this kind of information to you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

shouldn't the vandals edits be revdel'd? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is not clear to me that this qualifies for revdeletion--we reserve that for worse cases, though it is very clear that this was just an awful human being; thanks, Al Gore, for inventing the internet... Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:24, 9 October 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.

Đakovica Municipality - 3RR

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:PlyrStar93 violation of 3RR on Đakovica Municipality

1. 14:06, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804361730
2. 14:08, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804361852
3. 14:09, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804361968
4. 14:13, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804362382
5. 14:19, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804362962
6. 14:30, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804363756
7. 14:49, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804365699
8. 14:55, 8 October 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%90akovica_Municipality&diff=next&oldid=804366980

77.180.146.239 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting clearly unconstructive copy-pasted edits (original text was copied from Gjakova) by a blocked user is not in the scope of 3RR. Also, admin actions may be needed, as this user has been constantly switching IP's to edit Đakovica Municipality once an IP was blocked.

See also:

• Talk:Municipalities of Kosovo (diff)
• User talk:AirWolf (diff)

Also on Wikidata, more frivolous reports (if these are even considered as reports):

• User talk:PlyrStar93 (diff)
• Talk:Q3656386 (diffs: 1, 2, 3)

This user has been claiming that what I did was vandalism, when in fact I was simply reverting copy-and-pasted additions in violation of active blocks. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: User:C.Fred - the article was started by IP 92.228.158.198. The first 5 reverts listed above were all reverted by that IP. So the claim by User:PlyrStar93 "when in fact I was simply reverting copy-and-pasted additions in violation of active blocks" is a lie. 78.55.121.189 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I re-checked the page history. It was a copy-and-paste fork from Gjakova, so that part of the situation is correct. I'm now checking editor histories. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for pointing out the chain of IP hopping. It looks like you're the most recent incarnation of 92.228.158.198. Blocked accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 8 October 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.

TP-access.needs revoking

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

UR1N3 (talk · contribs) (Nomen est omen). Keeps launching unfounded unblock requests. Can someone please revoke TP-access? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User evading block and continuing to post in WP:FTN

In Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard|Defensive gun use WP: Hoax page?, it looks like User:75.99.95.250 aka User:Logic Freebaser aka User:Kingshowman is evading a block and continuing to post in a thread he/she started. Not sure what to do here. Ideally I would like someone to close the discussion there since he/she will likely create another account if the IP is blocked. Thanks! -Location (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lets add [121] by a new (single purpose) users: Exposer of Falsehood. He has been blocked but even so it is clear this is not going to go away.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Eyes wanted on Steve Down

Last week I received a talk page message asking for my attention to Steve Down (based, apparently, on my having made a gnoming edit there). What I see there is disconcerting. I can't tell if this is an effort by one side to whitewash negative material out of the article, or by the other side to overload the article with negative information. My concern is that it is both, leaving no neutral party working on the page. Since I was called into it by one of the participants (and did some cleanup of clearly excessive copying and pasting of court documents), I think some completely uninvolved eyes are needed on this. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I largely agree with this assessment and will take a look. WP:BLP/N might be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor suggesting her duplicate editor-name be deleted

See User talk:Dahlia "May be you should delete this page because I already have here another user..." Could an admin tidy things up please? PamD 07:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: Well I deleted the talk page per G7 (legitimate request), I don't think much else can be done. Alex Shih^Talk 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

On a second thought, this account may need to be usurped (Special:CentralAuth/Dahlia_Rofe' Special:CentralAuth/Dahlia). Alex Shih^Talk 07:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• We don't usually delete user talk pages unless there's a very good reason (certainly not just as G7), and I'm not sure I'm seeing such a reason here. Policy is at WP:UP#DELETE, which says:

"You can freely blank any pages in your user space yourself (other than the few items that must not be removed) and request the deletion of your user page or subpages, by adding {{db-user}} to the top of the page.

...

Your talk page, pages which were moved into your user space from somewhere else, and user talk archives created by page move, may not be deleted in this way." (emphasis in original). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As per policy, I have undeleted the user talk page (as a request to delete it on the user talk page is essentially a {{db-user}} request).

Oh, and as another point, G7 is only for cases where "the only substantial content of the page was added by its author", which is not the case here. (sorry for getting my points in a mixed-up order, but I think that's it now.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Redirecting the talk page should be sufficient and is the normal course of action, so that is what I did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown, my apologies. Alex Shih^Talk 17:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks all for dealing with this - when I brought it here I wondered if there was some blindingly-obvious action I should have taken, but clearly not! PamD 13:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat by Peter Boyd

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.

---

By Peter Boyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems rather silly - [122] Jim1138 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a better link, because the original apparently showed the wrong diff: [123]. SkyWarrior 03:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Holy cow--our editorial privileges empower us to track and arrest people? This is going to make sock puppet investigations so much more interesting! Or is it just admins? The mops get all the fun... Snow ^{let's rap} 04:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Haha, alright, blocked. This is pretty silly but it is an explicit threat of legal action. Swarm ♠ 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The poor fellow doesn't know the difference between an encyclopedia article and a blog or a chat room. Now, he thinks Jim1138 is Jimbo Wales. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've converted the NLT block to a NOTHERE block, for obvious reasons. Swarm ♠ 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Lock your doors, FBI is coming to raid us. Alex Shih^Talk 05:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that he's blocked, the threat is Null and Boyd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Damn, next time I see a chance like this, I'll seize it. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 08:31, 8 October 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.

Heads-up re: Wikicology

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's a message on Wikicology's talkpage from Oshwah to the effect that Oshwah is advocating Wikicology's return to Wikipedia: [124]. Wikicology, for those who don't know, was site-banned from Wikipedia in May 2016 after endlessly promoting himself via articles about himself, lying about who he was and his profession and credentials, and creating more than 500 articles (many of them promotional) full of misinformation and fake citations. Here are some examples from his last six months of editing, for example:

Typical sampling of Wikicology's misleading articles with fake citations (from his last 6 months of editing)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE: I have provided links to refs only when the original is now unviewable and I was able to find a copy. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, three-sentence stub, (October 27, 2015). Citation on last sentence utterly fails to substantiate. Shehu Idris, two-sentence stub, (10 November 2015). Citations fail to substantiate that he is "Chairman of Zazzau Emirate Council". The first citation has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Muhammadu Aminu, two-sentence stub, (20 November 2015). Same as previous: Citations fail to substantiate that he is "Chairman of Zazzau Emirate Council". The first citation has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and does not even mention him. Femi Falana, three-sentence stub (1 December 2015). First sentence is not substantiated by its citation (it's just a pile of news articles in a news aggregator, even back in December). Second sentence is a copypaste. Jacques Champagne de Labriolle, one-sentence (10-word) stub (December 3, 2015). Both citations (from 2014) are about an unrelated matter with only a completely trivial mention of the subject; no indication whether the subject is still French ambassador to Nigeria or how to find out; no link to anything official. Meanwhile information on him is massively easy to find on Google; even the French Wiki article, which has existed since 2009, is quite long. Tanko Yakasai, two-sentence stub (December 12, 2015). The two citations don't substantiate a single thing, except that he was connected to President Shehu Shagari, but not in the way described. (Viewable version of cite 2: [125]). Federal Polytechnic, Ede, three-sentence stub, (January 2, 2016). The two citations fail to substantiate a single thing except for the fact that it exists. Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia, three-sentence stub (January 9, 2016). Citations utterly fail to substantiate. State High School, nine-word stub (March 1, 2016). Baffling nine-word stub and citation. Needs to be CSDed. Nigeria CommunicationsWeek, two-sentence stub (March 2, 2016). Citations fail to substantiate that it is an ICT newspaper; that is a "leading" anything; where it is headquartered; year of establishment; CEO's occupations/professions; that he "established" the publication; or that either he or the publication "founded" the Beacon of ICT Awards. National Security Advisor (Nigeria), 1,500-byte stub (December 12, 2015). 3 refs total: ref 1 fail; ref 2 utter fail; ref 3 utter fail. Bashir Yuguda, 2,000-byte stub (December 12, 2015). Out of 4 refs: ref 1 [126] complete and utter fail, does not even mention him; ref 3 (page 4) fail, quotation is not in article. Beacon of ICT Awards, 3,000-byte article (March 3, 2016). Out of 6 refs: ref 1 fails to substantiate "founder", "leading", "Lagos"; ref 2 fail and completely and utterly irrelevant; ref 3 fail; ref 5 complete fail. Ahmed Tijjani Mora, 13,000-byte article (November 10, 2015). Out of 15 citations: ref 1 fail; ref 2 [127] fail; ref 3 fail; ref 4: "incessant increased numbers" fail; ref 5 [128] complete fail; ref 6: complete and utter fail; ref 7: incorrect regarding courses at Administrative Staff College of Nigeria; ref 8: [129] complete fail; ref 9: complete and utter fail; ref 10: fail; ref 11: complete and utter fail; ref 12: [130] complete and utter fail; ref 13: complete and utter fail; the 8 Awards and Fellowships are completely uncited (and still are). Ahmadu Bello University Alumni Association, 9,000-byte article (November 10, 2015). Out of 9 refs: ref 1 [131] meaningless citation; ref 2 [132] fail; ref 3 fail; ref 4 [133] utter fail; ref 5 fail; ref 6 couldn't find a viewable link anywhere; ref 7 fail; ref 8 fail; ref 9 fail. All 11 "Benefactors" uncited (and remained so). Rest of article is 58 alumni, uncited. Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi, 7,000-byte article (November 13, 2015). Lead is completely incorrect. She did not win the L'Oréal-UNESCO Award for Women in Science; she received an International Fellowship. And she wasn't the second Nigerian to do anything; she was merely one of the two Nigerians who were honored in 2013. This is clear in the citation [134]; and also in these links: [135], [136]. Of the other 4 refs: ref 2 fail; ref 3 complete and utter fail; ref 4 [137] fail. Also, I happened to look at Categories for the first time: Why is she categorized as an "Educationist", when she is clearly not one? Folake Solanke, 11,000-byte article (December 9, 2015). Lead is incorrect: First female Commissioner, not first Commissioner (ref 1: [138]). Of the other 14 refs: ref 2 fails on "42nd" and wiki article omits the important qualifier "non-caucasian"; ref 4 complete and utter fail; ref 6 complete and utter fail; ref 7 fail, even with an in-book search (although I do find her name but not any of the other keywords), it's just the landing page of a snippet-view-only GoogleBook, with no page number even in the URL, and no snippet view provided; ref 8 complete and utter fail; ref 9 fail, plus the page number is given as "pp. 2–" when it's actually p. 342; ref 10 utter fail; ref 12 [139] no mention of receiving the "Commander of the Order of Niger" or when, but merely indicates, in her signature, her honorofic of "CON"; ref 13 fail. Ken Nwogbo, 7,000-byte article (March 3, 2016). Of the 6 refs: ref 1 fail, ref 2 not only fail but also totally useless; sentence 2 makes a major claim which has no reference; ref 3 largely fails and is largely irrelevant; ref 4 says "workshops" while wiki article says "media conferences"; ref 5 fails "national dailies". The three sources for this article (refs 4, 5, 6) are all actually the same article (on 2 or 3 different sites), published March 1, 2016 Nigeria time, and Wikicology posted his completed draft, with photo (which he had uploaded on March 2 Nigerian time), on March 3, 2016 Nigeria time. $2 billion arms deal, 43,000-byte article (December 14, 2015). Out of 69 refs: Ref 4 no indication of "order" or directive or anything of that nature; ref 5 fail (even the date is off); ref 7 fail: the investigation went back to 2007 and citation also does not substantiate specifically or exclusively counter-insurgency arms procurement investigation; ref 8 cannot find viewable copy; ref 10: misuse of the word "about" (twice) as the amounts and numbers are exact down to the penny; ref 11 complete fail; ref 12 fail: no mention of 3.850 billion or tax; ref 13 utter fail; ref 14 fail; ref 16 [140] fail; ref 19 fail: no charge, no firearms, no illegal currencies -- even the date is wrong: should be July 16 (source says "last Thursday"); ref 20 fail -- this is appended after two sentences and fails everything in the first plus most of the second; ref 22: the direct quotation presented in the wiki article as representing a quoted viewpoint is not a quote at all; ref 23 complete and utter fail; ref 24 cannot find a viewable copy; 25 fail; 26 total fail; ref 27 quotation wrongly attributed to "The Nation" when the citation isn't even The Nation and it was reported in many venues; 28 fail; 29 fail: no mention in source that Dakusi named Dokpesi (whose name is incorrectly spelled "Dopesi" throughout this wiki article -- nine times); ref 30 complete and utter fail; 31 fail: no mention of "other financail crimes"; ref 32 complete and utter fail; ref 34 complete fail on the last sentence; ref 36 source says "independent entrepreneur", not "private investor"; ref 37 [141] complete and utter fail on sentence two, on sentence one source says "remanded in" not "remain in"; ref 40 (reprint of same article different venue) total fail: citation is about Yuguda, not Bafarawa -- that's evident even in the title; ref 40 complete fail; ref 41 complete fail; ref 43 fail: zero mention of "Dopesi" [sic], Bafarawa, or being mentioned by Dasuki; ref 47 fail; ref 48 [142] complete and utter fail: this follows three sentences and is a complete fail for all three of them; 49 fail: no denial at all; ref 50 fail: none of the three dates are substantiated; ref 54 fail; ref 55 fail: amount is wrong (it's two different amounts, not an amount and its other-currency equivalent); ref 59 [143] fail: no mention of forum or cohosts, plus no "counter-claim" or "debunk"ing -- just a simple denial; ref 64 fail; ref 65 complete and utter fail; ref 67 complete fail. Bashiru Ademola Raji, 11,000-byte article (December 1, 2015). Out of 12 references: ref 1 fails five out of six claims; ref 2 bafflingly complete-and-utter fail; ref 5 fail: no indication of "visiting professor", "coordinated", or any dates; ref 6 fail; ref 7: this ref follows five sentences, the first two of which make major peacock claims that are never referenced or substantiated, the ref in question is a primary document substantiating only an article he wrote; ref 8 follows three sentences: the first sentence is unsubstantiated, the second sentence has a date 5 years off, the third sentence is a copypaste with merely subject and object switched; ref 9 is the subject's auto-bio on his own website (most of the "substantiating" refs on this wiki article are not independent of the subject); ref 10 fail; ref 11 complete and utter fail; ref 12 complete fail. Buhari's anti-corruption war, 17,000-byte article (February 11, 2016). Out of 30 refs: ref 1 fail; ref 4 first sentence of quote is not in citation and end of quote is cut off mid-sentence; ref 14: bishop did not his express opinions "during the consecration of a Catholic priest" and quotation is presented as a direct quotation when it isn't; ref 16 fail: citation says "almost" not "over" 200 signatures, and not by whom or from what country; ref 17 fail: citation precedes the purported arrest by three months; ref 18: information is not from Premium Times even within the citation; ref 22 fail: citation is from May and thus cannot substantiate June events and it does not mention sacking or imprisonment; ref 24: this is just a random article during the arrest cycle; ref 25: no mention of counter-insurgency; ref 26 fail; ref 27 fail: nothing about Dasuki mentioning anyone and this citation precedes any of that happening; refs 28, 29, 30 (bundle): fails all but one of six claims. Refs in this article have a slightly better pass rate than his other articles but the writing is atrocious: either incorrect English, or copypastes with a word or two changed. Sample incomprehensible sentence: "He raised a concern over how disobey court order in his fight against corruption." Temitope Aluko, 7,700-byte stub (February 4, 2016). Out of 9 references: ref 2 total fail; ref 4 complete and utter fail; ref 5 complete and utter fail; ref 6 complete and utter fail; ref 7 not really what the citation says; ref 8 [144] an overly detailed copypaste; ref 9 verbatim completely irrelevant copypaste. 60% of this very badly written article is a completely unnecessary unsubstantiated 500-word quotation/copyvio. Conclusion We have examined every article Wikicology has created since October 25, 2015. Four have already been deleted. Of the remaining 28 articles, not a single one meets WP:V except the following tiny stubs, most of which have their own problems: Henrietta Ogan (November 10, 2016). Non-notable two-sentence stub; probably should be AfDed. Professor Peller (January 27, 2016). Nine words. Borderline case. Was prodded and Wikicology was asked twice to expand it [145] but never did. Daily Post (Nigeria) (February 11, 2016). Three-sentence stub. State High School (March 1, 2016). Nine-word stub with baffling citation. Therefore Wikicology's statement that "I have not created any problematic article in the last 6 months" is false. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just a sample, adapted from ArbCom evidence. There are more than 500 of these highly problematical articles full of misinformation and fake citations.

Wikicology, as we saw throughout the ArbCom case and its evidence, and the RfA and ANI threads leading up to it, is a master of sweet-talk and adept at preying on admins who do not know better in order to promote himself and his interests on Wikipedia. Evidently Oshwah is his latest target (for lack of a better word). With all due respect to Oshwah, we've seen this before; please don't let yourself be fooled. This is a dishonest and problematical editor who is, in my opinion, a grave danger to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would fully agree with Softlavender's concerns and warning. I tried to mentor Wikicology, and I was deceived consistently. Sweet-talk indeed! WP:AGF to use the well-worn cliche, is not a suicide pact. I would urge Oshwah to re-think. Wikicology is incorrigible in his behaviours, and I doubt if there has been a change in a year. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above. At the least I would expect an admin to lay out a primary condition that the first and only thing Wikicology does is fix those 500 articles he was responsible for. At the least. — fortunavelut luna 21:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since he is demonstrably dishonest (although adept at sweet-talk and at fooling people), there would be absolutely no way to ascertain whether he was in fact fixing them, other than for a rigorous fact-checker to painstakingly go through every single article and citation (or lack thereof), as I did on the ones above (which took 4 full days of my time for 25 articles), just to see what's wrong, for starters. The same process would have to be repeated after he presumably "fixed" the articles, and we know he cannot be trusted (no matter what stellar work he may have done at Commons in the meantime). By my calculation, that process would take approximately 2000 man-hours. Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what will the women be doing with their hours during all this time? EEng 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And there you have it. 2,000 good reasons. — fortunavelut luna 22:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As a point of information, if Wikicology is un-site-banned by ArbCom, his two topic bans (also ArbCom-imposed) would still be in effect unless ArbCom removes those as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those topic bans would prevent him from continuing to wreak the kind of havoc he has been wreaking demonstrated in the examples posted above. Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I wasn't citing them as a rationale for un-site-banning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can see the negatives to this. Would @Oshwah: care to explain why they "welcome them back"? What's the upside to this? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• The question is valid. A great many people were taken in by this the first time around, which is why a simple and easy indefinite block was so difficult, instead requiring an arbcom case. I hope more people will not be taken in this time around. MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, No, No... No.

• No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. This guy is bad news. Forget it. Irredeemable. Out of the question. Knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. Con man. Fraud. Colossal waste of community time. Crazy idea. EEng 22:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• @EEng: It's bad for your digestion to hold your feelings in: tell us how you really feel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• He may well be a reformed character on Commons and god knows where else but allowing him back under any circumstance is a very very bad idea ..., Not to sound a dick but we all have better things to do with our time than to essentially babysit an editor so to speak. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. (Did anybody say "no"?) Utterly untrustworthy user. Softlavender, the Commons stuff is far from 'stellar' if you look at what he's really doing there (establishing a CV for a return here, with rote editing that, under analysis, is often pointless or wrong). Crazy idea indeed. -- Begoon 00:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Begoon; I have stricken that. Yes, it is and has been obvious to anyone with half a brain that the only reason Wikicology has been doing anything on Commons is solely in order to somehow maneuver his way back onto Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• This sounds alarming to me as well. But I hope Oshwah will eventually say more of his intentions here. He hasn't edited since his post on Wikicology's page. Oshwah: to offer Wikicology mentoring seems a recipe for burnout and general disaster. Just my opinion... no, actually it seems to be many other people's opinion too. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

I've brought this to Oshwah's attention, who is looking at it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this can be closed now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just reviewed everyone's input and arguments here (as well as the evidence provided - it's extensive), and based on such I have decided to withdraw my offer to mentor him. I completely agree that this will be a dangerous move. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I remember this case very well. Wikicology's conduct was outrageous and caused a great deal of harm both within and outside of Wikipedia (see, e.g., Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria for how one of Wikicology's unsourced, evidently false, statements was reprinted in an academic journal). This doesn't even touch on the sockpuppetry and copyright issues, let alone his track record of self-aggrandizement. I can see no circumstances under which he should be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: ArbCom has just this evening declined an appeal by Wikicology. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Evening where you are, anyway. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On the road of the arbitrator, it is always night. EEng 04:45, 9 October 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.

Escalating behavioral problems with an editor

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.

---

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Summary of the issue

First of all, I'm sorry about doing this, but I see no other option. An editor here is harassing me, disrupting my editing, and his behavior is escalating. Over the course of about a week, he's attacked me, mocked me, followed me across pages, reverted my edits (typically for spurious reasons), and even warned me on my user talk page for reverting some of his own obviously bad-faith reverts.

I've tried being nice, sticking to the issues and avoiding personal attacks, asking him to stop, ignored him, and nothing is working against his escalating campaign, and it's disrupting the pages I'm working on, and making it impossible to edit in peace. So here I am, turning to you people for help.

Relevant articles (and their talk pages)

• Theistic science (talk)

• Functionalism (philosophy of mind) (talk)

• WP:FTN

Details

Here's a sequence of events, with diffs, quotes, etc. All of this has happened across the span of about a week.

1. First encountered user on the talk page for Theistic science. User falsely labels me a creationist. diff

"I would also note that Approaching appears to be a creationist..."

The accusation was false (I affirm evolution), it was unsupported by his provided evidence, and it wasn't relevant to the topic. User appeared to seek to smear or discredit, as spreading rumors that one is a "creationist" is a surefire way to foment negativity and suspicion about them. User apologizes and retracts accusation later, to their credit. But things only get worse, as you'll see.

2. ‎User attempts to obstruct discussion on the talk page. diff

"I am unwilling to debate this with you any further unless I see at least one other person who supports your position."

Characterizing my discussion as "debating" and demanding prerequisites for discussion appeared to me to obstruct consensus-building.

3. I call out the above move as improper. diff User becomes more volatile, stonewalls further. diff

"Your ham-handed attempt to stuff words in my mouth will not change my decision to no longer debate with you. Nobody agrees with you. Please go away. And please stop pinging me."

I didn't mean to ping him, I was just responding to two people in one comment and wanted to specify what comment was addressed to whom.

4. User continues stonewalling the discussion, proceeding to characterize my consensus-building attempts as sealioning. diff

5. User proceeds to create a section on the talk page mocking me. link

6. ‎User edits my post on talk page, removing it from original context and putting it in a different context removal diff [ reinsertion diff]

7. User explicitly states his goal to mock, not discuss. diff

"—Approaching, I am not debating you. I am mocking you..."

8. User first follows me to a different page. My first comment And four days later...

9. User then follows me to a second page, growing bolder, and interfering with my edits now. first recent edit The next day...

10. User proceeds to repeatedly revert my edits (on the second page he followed me to) for a range of unrelated, spurious reasons. diff diff diff diff

His first reason for reverting me on this page was because of alleged editorializing. But the content he claimed was editorialized was stated in the source, found in other sources on the topic, and is a widely accepted view in philosophy of mind.

His next reason for reverting me was for what he called "patent nonsense about computers".

Note user's stated reason is tied to computers, but his reverts cover a far wider range of my contributions on that page.

He also reverts under the guise of "reverting pseudoscience", despite the topic being not science, but philosophy, and the contribs supported by reliable sources.

He later reintroduces the sealioning mockery into this new context as a justification for reverting all my contributions. diff

"We have seen your sea lion song and dance already at Talk:Theistic science#Pseudoscience."

When asked about why he's reverting all my edits when he only declares some problematic, he says: diff

"All of your edits to this article are problematic. You cannot seriously expect me to allow the rest of the bad edits to stay in the article while we discuss the first one. If we allowed that, all someone would have to do is make a hundred changes and then keep sealioning[2] the first one...."

11. I reverted his edits on the grounds of their overly broad scope, and for exceeding his stated reasons. After some back and forth he comes to my personal talk page with a warning. diff

He demands we discuss any edit I make before I make them, but never engages with what I say. (too many diffs to offer in support. Look at the pages.)

12. Attempt to gin up action against my edits on the fringe theories noticeboard. diff

13. A motif ever-present in our interactions are my consensus-seeking questions responded to on his part with evasion of any substantial topic-related discussion. You'll see this if you contrast my responses to him, and his responses to me. (too many diffs to offer. See linked pages)

14. Not to mention his hostility and false accusations peppered throughout the interactions (too many to offer)

15. User ignores repeated attempts to defuse the situation and cease bullying and mocking. It clearly seems to be a joke to him. diff diff diff

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Approaching (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

(Non-administrator comment) I'll only comment on one particular dispute, which was at Theistic science. Despite consensus that it can be described as pseudoscience (also supported by relevant policies), Approaching appeared to want to pursue endless discussion and nitpicking despite WP:NOTFORUM at which point I decided to end the discussion. This also would be the point where Guy humorously referred to the sea lion. I have not followed the other discussion(s) so cannot currently comment on them. Although it is possible that Approaching is not a creationist, which should not matter if we follow policies and summarize reliable sources anyway, I also had the impression that the editor's goal was to push the fringe point of view that methodological naturalism could be replaced by theistic science in the philosophy of science and that the resulting "science" would not be pseudoscience (or religious arguments). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 09:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• My observation is that Approaching is being as, or nearly as, difficult as Guy Macon. While Guy is openly mocking Approaching, Approaching is more subtle and superior in her mockery. Neither of them are really resolving the issues. In my opinion, what needs to happen, at least in the Functionalism article, is for a neutral request for participation to be posted on the Philosophy and Psychology WikiProject talk pages (rather than the FTN). Both editors need to stick to discussing content and need to stop talking about each other, or other editors, completely. (That includes avoiding the words "you" and "your", and avoiding referring to other editors by name or otherwise.) Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  Edited to add: Approaching needs to be reminded that she doesn't get her way just because she outlasts or out-talks everyone else. WP:CONSENSUS has to be gained before controversial or challenged changes are reinstated. Guy needs to remember that he can't tell people on article talk pages to go away. He is free to ignore others, or not participate further; all he needs to do is state his viewpoint once. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the preceding 182 words can be condensed into the following 6: Observe Wikipedia behavior policies and guidelines. They aren't hard to find. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the wise comments. About wanting to have the last word, I also had this impression. Unfortunately this may also be construed as trolling (I'm not confirming that it was). But it's then difficult to discern if to drop it, to play the game, to be more assertive, to ignore, etc. Individual editor time is a finite resource and unfortunately the request for attention wasn't answered promptly. On the theistic science article, it was my request for attention which Guy Macon answered so he was invited and welcome there, not hounding Approaching. I don't think we have a case of harrassment yet but I hope he can decide to not feed the troll when having the impression to face one until others finally can help, no matter how tempting... As for user interaction, I see Guy everywhere so would not be surprised that they encounter again. In case where some editor's motivations are unclear it's also normal to check one's history to see if the concern is warranted and notice potentially problematic edits, if any. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm clearly missing a trick here, bt what, pray, is sealioning? It sounds like it could be fun, if a trifle energetic. — fortunavelut luna 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah! We even have an article on it :) although it doesn't really explain why sea lions are analogous to trolls. I think that's very unfair on sealions! — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 9 October 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.

Timeshift9

Could an admin please review mine and Timeshift9's recent conduct and determine which of us is in the wrong? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You could help by telling us what conduct where. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, just had a quick look - I see massive edit warring by both of you, and I'm surprised you haven't both already been blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you have not informed User:Timeshift9 of this report at ANI as required - go and do that now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ivar continues to blatantly ignore image copyvios and reverting of them despite repeated explanations why. User is also removing my WP:AUP talkpage contributions. See largest discussion here on my talk. As it is blatent image copyvio and ignoring WP:BRD and user won't acknowledge, I am ensuring their repeated basically-now-vandalism does not stand. Have raised here and on article talks (PK and ALP). Timeshift (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• First thing you *both* do is stop edit warring. Then, if you can't get anywhere by discussion, seek advice from a copyright expert - this report here should hopefully attract a few. User:Ivar the Boneful, *do not* revert other people's comments from talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a blatant image copyvio but Ivar continually refused to listen to all the guidelines I referred to (note that Ivar's lack of any substance on this dispute, as exhibited in the various mentioned talk pages, in-turn serves to show that unlike him, i'm able to defend myself here - whereas his actions can only and have only led him to a self-imposed vacuum after his initial post - to be shown correct by Ivar not being able to or capable of providing any further response here). When it comes to Australian Politics images, I am (at least in practice) a copyright expert. No user has done more for AusPol federal leader images than myself - and that's not a subjective opinion either, it's outright fact if one cares to spend any time having a look around the subject area. So whilst I understand why you've said what you've said in your last post Boing, conversely, I could not not post this. Anyway... WP:BRD should have got Ivar to get advice, leave the status quo, and not repeatedly force his new disputed change. Now, finally, we are there. Timeshift (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, then get *another* copyright expert to help - you know the way when two people can't agree on something, they can ask someone else? And ask that someone *before* you get into and way past WP:3RR territory. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I normally adhere to WP:3RR. But in this situation, when I wholeheartedly consider the other user not to be acting in good faith on purpose, refuses to listen to repeated advice, continues to force a blatant image copyvio even after I spelt out repeatedly in detail why it is such, and additionally ignores WP:BRD and WP:CON despite repeatedly explaining it. When these four are combined together, it cannot be considered anything except vandalism on top of the evident blatant image copyvio. In the latter half of the dispute, I raised the issue for discussion and input at WP:AUP discussion and at the PK and ALP article talk pages. In my 11-year 65k-contrib time here, this has always been enough, never before have I had to look for a specific explicit copyright expert. But if the new user is so sure they are correct, per WP:BRD it is incumbent upon them to seek such advice. I talked for ages on my user talk, on WP:AUP, on article talk pages. For the one defending the status quo and not violating WP:BRD, I most certainly consider it solidly sufficient. Timeshift (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not about winning a "Who's right?" battle, but just about getting the right answer - and a less confrontational approach form both sides usually works better, in my experience here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And almost always the right answer is accepted upon my explanation, but Ivar went way further. I kept giving him the information, guidelines, tools needed to demonstrate but Ivar did not read or care. I went to WP:AUP and various talk pages with no effect. Who's right/i'm right aside, I did more than many in this situation. I'm not an ANI (or AfD, et al) type of person - i am and always have been content (and talk page) focused and very much not bureaucracy focused - I leave that for others to do and usually that's how it always tends to occur. I can admit that when it is late and the user is being obtuse, I can get confrontational to an extent, but if that's all I have been, all it means is that i'm not perfect... fair enough, but I am who I am and i'm satisfied a reasonable person would have responded in the opposite way to Ivar. I tried, he didn't - I can't fix that. Anywho, it seems we are moving on to third party responses to the copyright question per below. Timeshift (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like there's some productive investigation going on there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the offending image in question is confirmed by the third party as a copyvio. Like there was ever going to be any other outcome *eyeroll*... i'm off to bed now, hopefully no bureaucracy night terrors. Timeshift (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment on the copyright question, on the article talkpage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

While the edit warring here was over the top, and extended well beyond the copyright issues, Ivar the Boneful has been trying to edit war obvious copyright violations into a large number of articles. I have warned them to stop this on their talk page, and will block them if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Uncle dan is home

Uncle dan is home (talk · contribs)

This is a request for opinions about a case of potential long-term abuse of Wikipedia:Reference desk. The reference desks are relatively relaxed about enforcing Wikipedia policies, which is understandable. However, the user in question here has been posting repetitively for the past one year borderline highly contentious open-ended questions with mostly just one line (there are so many of them, you can literally just pick any posts from the log). While this kind of conduct is against some of the principles of the reference desk (such as we are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.), there doesn't seem to be a policy that regulates these kinds of usage.

Ever since creating an account in June 2016, the user in question has made 257 edits with 0 edits to the mainspace (top edits). Several users including myself have tried to engage with them to discuss this problematic editing behaviour but to no avail. My question is, can there possibly be a consensus to block this kind of user for being clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant and obvious case of WP:NOTHERE, and he's had several warnings about trolling the reference desk already. Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Now there's a consensus for you :) — fortunavelut luna 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

He had me at "0 edits to mainspace". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was expecting a barrage of "show me the disruption" but I guess I managed to serenade. Alex Shih^Talk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• First NOTHERE is not policy. Secondly, the first line of the reference desk remit is: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." - the reference desk is not here *solely* to enable 'building an encyclopedia' it is a reference desk in order to direct people to references either on-site or off-site. Its a given that the reference desk will be answering questions from non-wikipedians. If the goal is to ban people who ask contentious questions - then you should also be banning all the editors who either given non-answers or treat it as a talking shop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Only in death: How about WP:FORUM #4? This is not about the contentious questions, but about the long term misuse of volunteer time in asking questions that are borderline trolling. Alex Shih^Talk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Causes of sexual violence If we have an article on it, its a valid question. The correct response is 'Here are some references from our closest article on the subject' and close the request as answered. I should also point out the last line of WP:FORUM #4 actually refers you to the reference desk to ask questions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, questions were being raised about Uncle Dan as to whether he might be a sock of a banned user. Now that he's blocked, maybe it doesn't matter. But he did seem to raise a lot of debate-worthy questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. Regular ref desk editors treat the reference desk as a forum for debate and discussion, which is not what it is meant to be used for. Blocking someone who is merely conforming to the standard practice at the ref desk just because you don't like the questions they are asking is ridiculous. Provide refs for the question asked, close question. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly a block was needed, but NOTHERE is certainly the wrong reason. We can't set a precedent that it is somehow against policy to only particpate at the ref desks, and never edit the mainspace. That is simply not true. I don't know what Ritchie's intentions were - maybe this was really because of disruption of the ref desks - but it sure sounds (here and in the block log and in the comments on the user's talk page) like the rationale boils down to "doesn't edit the mainspace". Frankly, I don't think I want him near the mainspace.
  The actual problem appears to be the claim that he's disrupting the ref desks with lots and lots of dumb and or obnoxious and/or trolling questions, and has ignored previous requests to rein it in. If that's what's happening then I have no problem with a block. But as the blocking admin, Ritchie needs to at least confirm that he's reviewed the questions, believes they're disruptive, and then clarify the block so the blocked editor and the admins reviewing the unblock request are all on the same page. Right now, it appears a reviewing admin is asking whether or not he plans to start editing articles. The actual thing that needs to be addressed is, is he disrupting the ref desks? And if so, is he going to stop? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, he was disrupting the reference desks with questions that appeared to be intended to cause controversy. It is true that some regular editors treat the reference desks as a forum for debate and discussion, but most of the questions that are asked and answered at least can be seen as requests for answers, rather than just efforts to cause controversy. He was a problematic editor. It is true that the reference desks have a problematicity problem. I think that he needed blocking, but since he was blocked for a reason that isn't applicable to what he was doing, I would suggest that he be unblocked for now and given another chance, and, if he continues to ask disruptive questions, he can be either blocked again or topic-banned from the reference desks. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: [146]. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What's the connection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Have to agree with User:Floquenbeam here-the criteria for the block should be that the posts they are making are disruptive or trolling the reference desk,not just that they're only posting to the reference desk. Lemon martini (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Communication and edit warring issues

I've been patrolling new pages on albums, and several by Mister Memmedov have popped up, all by the same artist. I changed to a redirect, sending a message to say so, with both the message and edit summary saying that the subject didn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, but if something can be found to verify its notability, of course revert my edit. Mister Memmedov reverted all these edits without edit summaries, often several times, typical example is [147]. I've left numerous messages and edit summaries now explaining that WP:Communication is required and that edit warring, refusing to add edit summaries or respond to messages, and removing AfD tags while giving no reason are all disruptive editing and not welcome here. There are numerous warnings on his/her page, including about removing AfD tags two years ago [User talk:Mister Memmedov]. I think this editor is new relatively inexperienced (although edits are extremely similar to Xeyal Azerbeyli's edits). I just want the editor to start talking and try to resolve the issues. Xeyal Azerbeyli , please comment here. I may be misunderstanding you, but that's impossible to know if you refuse to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I have blocked Xeyal Azerbeyli for being promotional only/suspected undisclosed paid editing, and blocked Mister Memmedov and Ayla.Mirzezadeh for being obviously connected to Xeyal Azerbeyli. It appears that all of the accounts are (or were) connected to Aygün Kazımova and are here to promote her works. Alex Shih^Talk 04:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih. Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

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.

---

Summary of the request

Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

The content of the articles are off-topic here, but I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), is doing every personal attacks to fulfill his imaginary purpose. He has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages. I do not feel safe contributing because these long-going attacks are very hurtful, they have been going on for a long time in spite of every call to stop and they will continue unless the user is banned.

--Launebee (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Detailed request and quotes

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.

ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[148] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.

Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

Copy/pasted quoting
Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […] --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.

Accusation 2 [149]

Copy/pasted quoting

You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [150]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […] Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 4 [151]

Copy/pasted quoting

So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 5 [152]

Copy/pasted quoting

I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university has a strong jewish community . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ? Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[153], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 6 [154]

Copy/pasted quoting

So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community. Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.

Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[155][156][157][158][159]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [160], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.

Accusation 1 [161]

Copy/pasted quoting

You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be. Can someone stop these insults toward me? --Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 2 [162]

Copy/pasted quoting

You are calmly putting homophic slurs in Sciences Po' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.

Bad "jokes" [163][164]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Copy/pasted quoting

So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [165]

Copy/pasted quoting
Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [166]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [167]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.

Threat 1 [168]

Copy/pasted quoting
All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Threat 2 [169]

Copy/pasted quoting
Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.

Threats 3 and 4: legal threats [170][171]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[172], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone - so potentially anyone who disagrees with him - a "criminal".

Copy/pasted quoting
The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.

Example 1: abusive language[173]

Copy/pasted quoting
[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [174] [175]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[176] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

Copy/pasted quoting
That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting
I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples.

GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [177]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism.

I request a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It seems you were right about the TLDR. Since you are an admin and you looked over it, couldn't you do something in this case which seems quite simple? --Launebee (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Ok, I put more clearly that there is a summary above. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Sorry to ask, but could an admin intervene? --Launebee (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't think any administrative action (other than an formal warning as part of a close here) is necessary at this time. The solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page; @ARBN19: has previously edited this page a significant amount and possibly could comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• C.Fred, Amire80, Ocaasi : could you do something here? Otherwise the abuse will continue. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Launebee, I'm not sure why are you asking me, because I rarely handle ANI stuff, and I am more involved in technical things.

In any case, User:XIIIfromTOKYO hasn't edited for the last 10 days, and hasn't written anything in their defense here, so there isn't much that I can do at the moment. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: Sorry for the delay, but I have a lot of work these days. I can only notice that @Launebee: has failed to provide a single edit where I actually accuse him/her of antisemitism. S/he has clearly been playing with fire on that touchy issue ; What it on purpose ? As anyone can see in this very recent edit, s/he is making a reference to a "strong jewish community" and "racism", but the edit has nothing to do with that : s/he is only removing (again) warning templates. So I think it's only a new strategy to block any serious work on the article.

I have started to collect edits, but the issue is more important than what I have previously thought. Launebee as been asked repeatedly to clarify his/her position toward COI, but has always refused to do so. It's clearly time for him/her to clearly state his/her link with that school. I must insist on that point, because it will be crucial for the remaining of the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: You were in the admin list.

As you can see, XIII, not only is not seeing anything wrong in all what he wrote to me during the last 11 months, but is saying that I talk about Jews out of nowhere, once again clearly twisting the facts. As he knows very well, the edit he is referring to was removing a banner that he had included in the penultimate edit, with an ever-lasting accusation of antisemitism (to a university where the Jewish student association is the first association of this university on Facebook!). I obviously used the word "strong" in the sense of important, like in the talk page. Afterwards, he right away created a section [178] in the talk page implying I am a neo-nazi, when I quoted myself to answer again to his accusation, he jumped on the accusation of homophobia (last quotes of the relevant sections of my request). --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, you're only objecting to the commit message, not any of the content diffs? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

An admin may need to strike the commit messages at Special:Diff/800447263 and Special:Diff/800448084. I support closing this with a warning and no further action once that is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thank you, but I do not understand very well your question. XIII was here saying that I talked about Jews out of nowhere, and I objected that it was an answer to the edit summaries he did right before.

Lepricavark You were in favor of a ban, am I right? power~enwiki: Don't you think this long-term abuse against me merits such a ban? --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have better things to do on vacation than to straighten all of this out. The dispute has been going on at the talk page for 18 months and on pages relating to several French universities. The worst diffs (in Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University#Controversies_.3F) are almost a year old and I don't believe they justify a block now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for you time then. You are totally right, the old diffs alone don't justify a block, but it has been continuing meanwhile until now, and the last attacks – when it is implied I am a neo-nazi – are in September, I made the request right afterwards. --Launebee (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, I know you've provided a lot of links and quotes above, but could you provide simple diffs to these last attacks? That would help me to get a handle on this in a reasonable time. Give only the examples that you think imply that you are a neo-nazi. It's not necessary to quote the text, just the diff is fine. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: OK, sorry! The last attacks are from mid-September, right before I made this request. There were, only in September:

• statements strongly implying I am a neonazi [179][180] (message put twice in talk page, and let as such before I removed the second one) He talked a lot about an association I know little of, so, long time ago, I looked at the page, and there were very serious allegations made with no source, I removed them because there was a huge risk of libelous statement, XIII ended up implying everywhere I have a link with or I a from that association.
• statement strongly implying I have a bad opinion about the Jewish community [181], even though I just said they are important in that university and provided – once again (because he has been accusing me of those things for very long) – links to show that (and that it explained the anti-Semitic attacks against that university).
• statement that I wrote something wrong regarding the homosexuality of somebody [182], even though I provided links to anti-homophobic articles and homosexual community newspapers supporting the very old statement he was twisting.
• legal threats (EdJohnson qualified them as such [183]) against someone, but in a context of a dispute I was involved in. [184][185]

Hoping this answers well your request. --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It answers it, but not at all well. Others have commented above that your posts are too long to be helpful. We are volunteers here with finite time to waste on your essays. This post does provide the diffs I asked for, but also meanders off into other issues, which I explicitly asked you not to do (and should not have to IMO, if you really want our help please give us a break). See #A valid concern below. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO means to create a notification right? I just understood and removed below. Sorry, I am really trying. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that XTokyo consistently writes "Jew/Jews/Jewish" with a lowercase "j". Is that supposed to be some kind of a thinly disguised statement? The correct capitalization of other proper nouns comes across as a loud contrast. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Thanks, I never noticed. Panthéon-Assas has a very important Jewish community - its first student association is the Union des étudiants juifs de France according to Facebook likes and members – (it led to be attacked by far-right groups, and police had to protect the university at some point.) It might then explain why XIIIfromTokyo has a very very long history of removing any content he finds positive regarding Panthéon-Assas University, of removing sources and of severe disruption of the page. [186] Panthéon-Assas is the main page he contributed [187], but mainly to remove sources, using false or off-topic edit summaries etc. Three examples from this month only: [188][189][190] --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A valid concern

I looked at the first two diffs provided above (which seemed to be a complete answer to my question, see my response above), and invite others to look at this following diff which the first led me to.

It seems to me that Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors (sic) is completely unacceptable on an article talk page, for several reasons... personal attack and discussing behaviour in the wrong place mainly.

In view of the fact that there are possibly faults on both sides, I suggest that at the very least a stern warning to XIIIfromTOKYO is appropriate, saying that an immediate block will follow any further violations of NPA and/or discussion of behaviour that violates WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.

This must of course be no idle threat and followed through in need. Their English appears poor but that is no excuse (if we accept that excuse we open a floodgate to ESL pretenders). But keep the warning simple in the light of that possible problem.

Hopefully they will modify their behaviour as a result of this warning, and the other party might review their own contributions too and save us the time of doing so. And if not, we deal with it. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

Andrewa, you told me above you just wanted the diffs and only them. Sorry again. I give them to you then:[191][192][193][194] (and not directed to me: [195][196])

You can see there is no fault on my side. It is purely free personal attacks.

Launebee (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, from that reply I am now quite convinced that there is fault on your side too, but do you really want me to look for it?

Then start with the above post. I did not ask for more diffs, I said that you had answered that question, and yet you have further cluttered this discussion with this pointless post. I suggest you carefully read the guideline at wp:IDHT (and the rest of that page) and the essay at wp:boomerang. Note particularly that disruption can be unintentional, but it is still disruptive. You seem to have consistently ignored, or perhaps misunderstood, what I said, and I'll be surprised if I'm the only one you've done this to.

It doesn't say on your user page, but I suspect English is not your first language either, is that correct? Is that part of the problem? Francais, c'est peut-etre mieux pour vous? Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that this dispute has spilled into the French Wikipedia, or perhaps it started there. See fr:Utilisateur:XIIIfromTOKYO/Brouillon for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You told me it was not a good answer, I just tried to give a good one. User:Jingiby thanked me for that post, I thought it was good. I am trying here. I seems I am not used to ANI rules, but you can ask User:Robminchin or User:Mr rnddude, I respect rules in talk pages, and I made no personal attacks like XIII. Regarding here, you did not tell me not to answer, so I did not know, now if you tell me that is the rule, I will do it.

I copy here the text you are refering to (how did you end up on that?):

Copy/pasted quoting

Science Po and Assas are two rival schools in France, and a fierce competition has started a few year ago. It's decribed in this L'Étudiant article (well know French Newspaper dedicated to education) in the following ways : La compétition ne fait que commencer (the competition has just started) Droit : Assas et Sciences po en concurrence frontale (law : Assas and Sciences po on a Head-on competition) chacun des deux établissements va chasser sur les terres de l'autre (each of these schools has started poaching on the other's speciality). « notre "collège de droit" est au cœur de notre politique d'identification forte » - Louis Vogel, president of assas University (the Law school is the main herald of our PR policy)[197] extrême rivalité qui règne entre l'IEP parisien et la célèbre fac de droit (extreme rivalty between Science Po and Assas) I can go on and on, but these schools are big rival in France, and it's not never a surprise when dirty politics start between them. On FR.Wikipedia, someone speaking on the behalf of the university has already tried in the past to edit the article, so Wikipédia is seen as a media that needsto be edited for the university [198]. We have had to face a SPA on the French Wikipédia for months, whose only goal was to aggressively (words and beheaviour) promote Assas. As you can see, the very same contributor has been doing the same thing here. The individual, or the company, in charge of this very aggressive PR compaign has a very distinctive beheaviour with a few key patterns : Obsession with the notion of "heir"/"héritière". Even if references explain that the division of the University of Paris was a complexe task, s/he will only use references using this expression. Obsession with the word Sorbonne, even if this building has never been used by the faculty of law. Massive use of Eduniversal rankings. That company had to face legal threat from various universities, including the Ministry of education because of it's commercial practices (because selling free products is basically a scam, among other things) [199]. The methods used are also the same : pretending that there is somewhere a consensus in order to revert, trying to have the article protected on his/her version, creating a lot of counterfire (ANI...). It would be very long to summarize everything, so consider reading the talk page or fr:Discussion:Université Panthéon-Assas, there are a lot of links and in depth explanation. Droas82 Launebee Creation of the account 1st of December 2015, 14H29 1st of December 2015, 15:16 Main target Université_Panthéon-Assas, 2sd largest contributor in just 6 months, 71 edits Panthéon-Assas%20University, 2sd largest contributor, 115 edits Sciences Po 2sd largest contributor by added text (Assas's rival school) Massive use of SPA and or IPs to put back a version of the article eaquals to Droas82-Launebee * Dumas JE, Jcapnthon, Oakti96, LTANCREDE, Tesutr (open proxy blocked, Eduniversal). Not a single new account after the end of Droas82's contribution on this article. 82.66.154.166 (heir of the faculty of Law) *Slycinny (template removal, Eduniversal ranking, Sorbonne...), Relsissi5588 (revert, ranked first, Sorbonne...) Revert because there is a so called "consensus" somewhere, feigning of "taking into account" an other contributor's remarks, revering to his/her version because of a lack of concensus [200], [201], [202] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus on the talk page), [203] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus), [204] (reverted by an other contributor as there is no real consensus), reverted because has obviously lied about a so-called concensus, [205], revert despite a R3R and removal of the R3R model, Texte de la cellule Assas as the Best in all the rankings [206] (removing the refnec), [207], [208] Texte de la cellule Sorbonne everywhere, even if that building has never been used by the faculty of Law [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], "l'héritière légitime de (...) la Sorbonne", [216] Texte de la cellule Eduniversal/best rankings/the First in France... only external links added at the end of the article belong to Eduniversal, [217], "elle occupe la première place des classements français", "premiers rangs des classements nationaux", [218], [219], [220] Texte de la cellule Prestigious [221], [222]... Texte de la cellule Héritière/heir [223], [224], cette université en est l’héritière principale, [https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universit%C3%A9_Panth%C3%A9on-Assas&diff=next&oldid=128165679 Texte de la cellule What other contributors says about this contributor Celette« Ce combat ubuesque pour se présenter comme étant le "1er héritier" est assez puéril » Texte de la cellule Long story short. The same contributor has tried the same strategy on FR and EN, with the same goal. It was carefully thought before starting the campaign, as the 2 accounts have been created on the very same day, just a few minutes appart, and have refrained from editing on an other Wikipédia. Still, that falls under the definition of Sock puppetry, especially if you include the SPAs and IPs used to back these actions. Science Po Panthéon-Assas University « Warning templates are a bad things, and must be removed » [225]March, 4 March, 13 April, 5 November, 29 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 « Warning templates are a good things, and must be displayed » September, 17 August, 8 July, 17 || Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Texte de la cellule Templates used as weapon against other rival colleges Pantheon-Sorbonne University : POV dispute templates added : 6 March 2016, 6 March 2016 (again), 6 March 2016 (and again), 11 March 2016, 12 March 2016 HEC : POV dispute templates added : 8 August 2016 (also his/her first edit on the page) Science Po : POV dispute templates added : 17 July 2016 (also his/her first edit on the page), 8 August 2016, 13 August 2016, 17 September 2016. It was not put back after that, because obviously having 46 out of 60 references devoting to the criticism section if perfectly fine and neutral, especially when these references allow to deal with nazis, freemassonery, homosexuality, drugs, and prostitures[226]. And for Assas ? Well, not always removing POV dispute templates. Multiple use of sock puppet, and IPs 4 March 2016(and same day) 13 March 2016 5 April 2016 29 November 2016 30 November 2016 30 November 2016 30 November 2016 1 December 2016 ... (yes, a very long history log, so let's skip to the last removals) 12 May 2017 14 May 2017 28 May 2017 28 May 2017 2 June 2017 12 September 2017 13 september 2017 13 september 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 13 September 2017 16 September 2017 16 September 2017 Please not that the last 20 (!) templates removal by Launebee were done as more that 20 solid references were waiting on the talk page, as the university had to deal by some controversies during the last decades (only to be faced by legal threat if any of these reached the main page)[227]. Other contributors have also tried to put it back, but without any success. 73.212.115.205 : 4 March 2016 4 March 2016 Midas02 : 5 March 2016: « POV can stay, editors have a right to question the neutrality - see TALK » 13 March 2016 : « Launebee (talk) You have been accused of biased editing, and still this is the second time you're removing the POV notice - DO NOT remove this again! » Mr rnddude : 10 May 2017 « Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) » 14 May 2017 « I did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues. » Sciences Po : 8 times since Launebee's arrival, none before [228] Assas : 3 times since Launebee's arrival, none before [229]

This unsigned section was added here and seems to be covered by #Suggest close above, it's part of the same content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(It is very long, so I need to be.)

It seems that XIII is talking about the past, nothing here seems recent. XIII seems to be saying that all the edits done in opposition to his edits are one big plot from a French university president, and – since he wrote this after my request – it would explain why he constantly threatens me and accuses me of anti-Semitism and homophobia, use abusive language, etc. XIII only give parts of talks, not up-to-date comments, and from that explains that there is one big plot against his point of view.

He mostly gives links in French, not related to me, so that the administrators cannot understand. But most of it is false translation. I would take only the two first links to prove it:

• "« « notre "collège de droit" est au cœur de notre politique d'identification forte » - Louis Vogel, president of assas University (the Law school is the main herald of our PR policy)" XIII is creating a confusion between the law school as a faculty or the law school as a special degree within a law faculty (see Law schools in France, here Vogel is talking about the latter ("collège de droit"), not at all his university
• XIII’s claim that someone claimed to be paid by PA in this edit [230] is simply false. The edit summary means nothing in French, and the IP history shows he has edited another article (within the only three edits) [231].

As for the idea that every editor on the French wikipedia, would be one editor, it is just ridiculous. For example, the edit history of the second editor he is refering to had been edit-warring with Droas82 [232], they are clearly not the same editor. This plot theory makes no sense, and even if it were true, I do not see the point.

It is not worth inspecting everything but all of that seems very untrue.

Regarding what’s left in English – very little –,

• On the SP lead, there was a consensus: I voted "strongly oppose" to that consensus (with a lengthy explanation, and other users pushing in the beginning for cherry-picking etc.) but I protected that consensus anyway, and asked to protect the page to protect that consensus anyway. You can see there are now civil talks, and issues are resolved thanks to Robminchin.
• On PA page, long has been going on since one year and half. There was indeed huge problems with the page, but everyone can verify there has thorough discussion with Mr Nurdule, an third independant user who said in the beginning that there was huge issues, but then we resolved those issues together, in spite of the personal attacks of XIII.
• On the other French universities webpages, stating similar things because the sources are clear, XIII says nothing.
• It is just ridiculous to say because templates were needed on one page, and not on the other one, that it would mean something beyond than that.

I edit a lot on Parisian universities, which are all linked to the Sorbonne, but he summarizes it by "Obsession with the word Sorbonne". You find the word "heir" or "inheritor" on all the pages of the inheritors of the Sorbonne, but it would be a plot focused on Panthéon-Assas. Etc. Etc. I think he has on obsession on the Sorbonne. And XIII does not seem to understand that if many users say the same thing, perhaps it is because that thing is right.

Who would trust someone who has blatantly made false accusations of antisemitism, homophobia, made legal threats, others threats and personal attacks? Everybody can see that I talk, I do a lot of RfC, I use sources, in short I am a good faith editor. The only thing true is that I have been driven once into an edit-warring and I already have been sanctioned for this. But with all these despicable personal attacks on anti-Semitism and homophobia, the threats, the aggressive language toward me, I think I have been more than patient with XIIIfromTokyo, by never answering in an uncivil manner to his attacks.

Finally, I would use wp:boomerang on the COI. XIII has clearly got one regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[233][234] (project of merger), Waseda too[235][236] (only link in France), Tokyo too[237][238]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.

You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [239][240][241].

--Launebee (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest close

Launebee, I think that at least part of the problem is that your English is no better than my French, and I would not presume to edit articles in French Wikipedia at all, let alone controversial ones. You do not seem to understand my posts at all.

So I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing controversial articles in English Wikipedia. Attempt discussion on the article talk pages by all means. But let someone else fix the articles themselves. And be very wary of accusing others of mistranslation. You simply do not have the skills to assess this. Question the translation on the talk page if it needs questioning, and again let others fix it. If it needs fixing, in time they will.

Nobody else has commented on my assessment of XIIIfromTOKYO's behaviour (which was supposed to be the topic of #A valid concern above) and I am reluctant to act unilaterally, but it still seems an open-and-close case of an unacceptable edit to me.

Unless there is support for the proposed stern warning (or worse) to XIIIfromTOKYO, I think this is best closed as no trouble found. The content disputes belong elsewhere, as do the disputes on French Wikipedia. I referred to French Wikipedia only because I thought it important to recognise that neither of you is operating from a zero base, in that there's significant discussion on the French Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My request was not about the content dispute, and not about the French Wikipedia. I was just answering. It was about the legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern, and the repetitive accusation of antisemitism and homophobia.

You can also see what Joefromrandb wrote above. Mr rnddude also noted XIII's personal attacks. --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There are no legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern. None whatsoever. Perhaps unintentionally this is another irrelevant sidetrack. Someone else may wish to unravel this, but I think we all have better things to do. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee's COI

Sorry for the delay, but I'm still a bit busy IRL. As far as I can see, @Launebee: has again refused to disclose any COI with PA university (you have read what's on the French Wikipédia, so you might realize that I have found a few interesting things ).

So let me ask it again, because that's clearly a point that you have purposely concealed until now. And a point that is crucial for the understandings of you 2 years campaign of edits. What link do you have (or did you have) with PA University.

As for myself, I have always clearly stated the links that I have had with any college on my user page in the French Wikipédia.

And feel free to call it an obsession again .XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you XIIIfromTOKYO, and yes, that does explain a lot.

But that does not excuse your own behaviour. I am not going to unilaterally block you for this edit, and it's a bit stale now anyway. But I will certainly support a block if there are any further occurrences of personal attacks, or failure to follow proper procedures in dealing with attacks on yourself.

I know that it's hard at times, especially as ANI has sometimes been ineffective in the past. That is why I am giving it some time myself now. If you need help with any behavioural issues, please feel free to ask for help on my talk page, or to email me. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, XIIIfromTOKYO, it is not sufficient to disclose your COI on your French Wikipedia user page. If you are involved in edits or discussions that involve your COI, you must disclose it here, because not all of us read French! I'm sorry if the policy does not make that clear and will follow that up. Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My affiliations have all been added[242], as they have been for years on the French Wikipédia.

About the the edit you are pointing out, as you can read on the previous edit, a swarm of IPs have targeted my edits, in order to systematically revert my edits. It qualifies as Harassment, which is considered as a crime in France. So a breach of the point 4 of the terms of use. I'm not saying that Launebee personally did it, because I can't rull out that s/he is has been working with a larger group and/or company (because creating 2 accounts to target 2 version of Wikipedia clearly indicates that some level of organisation and/or experience is involved : these actions were carefly planed).

Which brings us again to the concealement of Launebee's COI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, XIIIfromTOKYO. I feel I must ask directly, do you have any other COI with respect to any French university or law school? And, as the term affiliation is yours (you created the User University of Rennes 2 template for example, and are currently the only one using it) what exactly is your affiliation with those that you list? Student, staff member, past student... what? Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

wp:boomerang: XIIIfromTokyo COI

If an admin asks for a disclosure, I will answer, no problem. And the idea of a big plot linked with big money interests is not serious and is based on nothing serious, as I proved it above.

XIII has clearly got a COI regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[243][244] (project of merger), Waseda too[245][246] (only link in France), Tokyo too[247][248]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.

You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [249][250][251].

--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If an admin asks for a disclosure, I will answer, no problem. Done. It should not be necessary to ask, let alone necessary for it to be an admin that asks, but that was easily solved. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I studied at the INALCO, and have friends from many universities, including SP and PA, but like a lot of people in France. --Launebee (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New legal threat by XIIIfromTokyo

EdJohnston pointed out on 16 September[252] that XIII is doing legal threats, by calling someone a "criminal" on his talk page [253]. After a warning on edit-warring, since XIII continued, EdJohnston blocked XIII for three days.

XIII used the same language in an article talk page [254]. Andrewa wrote [255] that it "is completely unacceptable on an article talk page" (2 October)

Yet, here, on the 4 October, XIII is once again refering to a "crime" according to French law [256].

--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a legal threat as we use the term here. It may be seen as such on French Wikipedia, but our policy reads in part Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention.

But I think there's a case for blocking you both. Neither of you should be editing the articles concerned. You are both francophones, and your English is just not good enough to do so. You do not understand English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are of course written in English. Ideally, you would both agree to a topic ban on these and related articles. We do not have the authority here to impose a topic ban, but we should consider a block for persistent disruption (perhaps unintentional, but we do not need to decide that, it's still disruption). Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Many users have seen my good work on articles, you can ask User:Robminchin, User:Mr rnddude, and others. power~enwiki has been helping on one article too.

I quote you what Jytdog wrote about my work on SP article [257]: "I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po".

You can look at Pantheon-Sorbonne University before[258] and now. You can see that C.Fred looked after the discussion in talk page.

I also improved other articles in the Wikipedia, like San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University (with some help from Robminchin), University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University, etc. Other contributors thanked me for edits, and everything is consistently sourced.

--Launebee (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, since I've been pinged here twice now, I'll stop by to write a small comment. On the topic of Jytdog's comment, I'll finish the whole quote; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). In other words, limited improvement on the whole. I personally don't think that either editor is here to intentionally cause problems, rather, that some disputes have lead to the formation of problems. There are a number of ways to rectify this, each with their pros and cons.
  1. An IBAN - pros; will prevent the issues of civility and harrassment (IP's targeting XIII can be dealt with individually) / cons; won't prevent disruption, could have detrimental effects on articles.
  2. A TBAN - pros; will prevent disruption to the articles / cons; won't impact on personal issues between the two editors, won't prevent disruption within the project and will leave both editors feeling punished.
  or 3. A dual PBAN from Pantheon-Assas and Sciences Po - pros; is limited in scope, targeted to the locus of the dispute, and can be revisited after some set period / cons; as with a TBAN disruption may spread and still feels like punishment (just less severe).
  In any case, it is up to the community to decide what to do. Any of these restrictions can be placed and enforced here on one or both editors - e.g. a two-way no fault IBAN. It's a matter of somebody proposing a course of action. On this task though, I must say, not me. Having interacted with both editors, I get both editors frustrations and the resultant problems they cause. Launebee is actively trying to expand and improve the Pantheon-Assas article. XIII notices problems cropping up in these edits and wholly undoes them. This then leads to back and forth arguments on the article talk and edit-warring in the article. Like I've said before, this is a zero sum game. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, Jytdog's sentence you quote was in favour of my point, which was that the Sciences Po article needed more improvement. It was one year ago, and SP alumni wanted to do what User:Robminchin called cherry-picking and put the sentence Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions and was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017. So, Jytdog was totally in favour of my point. I did a RfC, and as you can see, there was a consensus against such a sentence, which was totally my point and Jytdog's. DGG, Maproom, North8000 and later User:Robminchin clearly stated how my point was reasonable. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of improvement. I clearly helped the page to be improved a lot.

And you can see I helped on San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University, Pantheon-Sorbonne University, etc. --Launebee (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good analysis IMO.

Blocks and bans are not about punishment. They are about protecting the encyclopedia, and I see no other way forward. We have wasted more than enough time on these two editors. Their disruption of the encyclopedia must stop. If they will not agree to stop, and neither shows any inclination to do so, then unfortunately they must be stopped by the tools available.

I expect that they will both claim not to understand why this is being considered. Their understanding is not an issue. Perhaps their (it seems very) limited English is the problem, or perhaps they are just playing wp:IDHT. I can't tell, but it doesn't matter, either way. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and they are both hindering that task.

I'm going to pour another glass of good Australian Pinot Grigio and see if I can come up with a specific proposal, maybe in the morning, or maybe tomorrow night (Hobbys Yards time). But very interested in any other proposals. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about not being punishment, and that you did not like the fact I wrote much here in ANI. In another hand, except one edit-warring once, there is no example of disruption from my part of articles, or personal attacks in talk pages etc. On SP page, today again, an edit was made against the consensus. In talk pages and articles, I clearly improve articles, like Jytdog said, and in talk pages, I clearly follow the rules, like the consensus on SP, I help protecting, in spite of the fact I was "strongly opposed" to the current version. Whereas I gave, for September only, three examples of diffs where XIII has been disruptive using false or off-topic edit summaries and deleting source. --Launebee (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this simply fails to address the issues, and shows that you have no intention of doing so.

The problem is not that you wrote much here in ANI. It's that what you wrote did not address the question, or even appear to understand it.

Nor is it alleged by anyone that all of your work is unproductive. That's not the point at all. You've said this before, and nobody is arguing with it. But that is not the problem. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What I said is that there has not been any disruption from my part on articles, except the edit-warring with the block afterwards. If you can show one disruption of PA page, please tell me.

On another hand, I showed, the last month only, many personal attacks, possible threats and disruptive editing from XIIIfromTokyo. [259][260][261] I did not do all of that. --Launebee (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with XIIIfromTOKYO is I think generally accepted, and you do not need to further clutter this page with repeating your evidence. The claim that there has not been any disruption from my part on articles, except the edit-warring with the block afterwards. If you can show one disruption of PA page, please tell me (emphasis removed) is itself disruptive, perhaps unintentionally, as is explained in #To summarise again below. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To summarise again

I remain of the opinion that there is fault on both sides. That does not necessarily mean that I blame either or suggest any lack of good faith on either part. It simply means that, for whatever reason, both editors are damaging Wikipedia, and showing no sign of changing their behaviour so that this would cease. Neither appears to have sufficient competence in English to productively work on the controversial articles involved, or even to understand why they should take a step back from them.

See #A valid concern and #Suggested close above. Neither of them seem to get it. Whether this is because of language difficulties we do not need to decide. It is still disruptive, and we have better things to do.

Possible remedies were well analysed IMO at #New legal threat by XIIIfromTokyo above, with the one proviso that I made in the discussion there... I'm afraid it's not important that one may feel unjustly punished, although obviously it would be good to avoid that.

This is not about justice or punishment. It's about what is best for Wikipedia. The disruption must stop.

So far as the underlying content dispute at Panthéon-Assas University goes, there are several experienced editors active in editing the page. Semi-protection in need should be used to solve any problem with IPs. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(Please see above my answer on the fact there has been no disruption from my part in articles, and many from XIII.) power~enwiki wrote above, "The solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page, @ARBN19: has previously edited this page a significant amount and possibly could comment". Perhaps he could hear us to comment if he sees any disruption from me on PA page? --Launebee (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we just have to accept that you and I disagree on whether or not your behaviour is disruptive. You say there has been no disruption from my part in articles (my emphasis) when the issue is disruption generally, not just in articles, so again it seems that for whatever reason you simply fail to understand. wp:IDHT is a section of wp:disruptive editing, of course.

Strongly agree that the solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page, and as I pointed out there are already several others active, including but not only power~enwiki. I looked at the Panthéon-Assas University article some time ago to see whether perhaps it was so poorly written and referenced that it should be stubified, but nothing could be further from the truth. So there is no need for either you or XIIIfromTokyo to edit there.

And your involvement there is damaging to Wikipedia, because it carries a significant risk of discouraging these other editors. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me on this thread. WP:IDHT to read all this drama. If there's no chance of a peaceful resolution, I recommend both Launebee and XIIIFromTokyo be TBAN-ed from pages on French universities to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Andrewa, so we agree the article is in good shape. You can see its state before I worked on it: [262]. Like other articles I worked on, there are now much more references and material. Perhaps you would agree there are two different topics in this dispute.

On content, it needs to move forward indeed. So I would agree, if XIII is banned to edit PA page, to stop editing the PA article when there is a disagreement in talk page, and to ask systematically for a third opinion before editing if it is the case. There is no need to ban me, because I may add updates or non controversial content, but I won't be adding something new (from now on) if there is a two-way disagreement in talk page and there has been no third opinion. Note that the warring is only on PA.

The second topic is the personal attacks, and I would request a separate answer. I understand on content a third opinion is needed, as you both say, but on personal attacks and repetitive false accusations (antisemitism, homophobia, plot, etc.), XIII needs to know that it is not acceptable. And I never committed such attacks. This should be answered separately with a block. If XIII strikes all his attacks and threats, or states that that I have never said anything wrong about Jews or homosexuals, that I am not part of a plot, and that I never did anything "criminal", however, it means he would have understood, and a warning may be sufficient.

I hope that seems reasonable.

--Launebee (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to agree not to edit that article at all, whether or not there is a similar agreement from the other party or other action regarding them. There is no reason to give you the decision as to what is controversial. To do so makes your undertaking meaningless, and so is no resolution.

And when compared to this non-commitment by yourself, what you are asking of XIIIfromTOKYO is laughably severe. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Power~enwiki, (note that there is no ping as requested).

Support this proposal that both Launebee and XIIIFromTokyo be TBAN-ed from pages on French universities to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposal was only if the issue is not resolved. Note also that we are only talking about the PA page, not all French universities, there has been no dispute on most of those university pages, and you are not saying that all my work has been disruptive.

Regarding the PA, you can see I clearly improved the article. "Controversial" means here that somebody disagrees. If somebody disagrees, I do not edit. But it is the benefit of Wikipedia if I can update or add sources (there are still sections that need sources), like in other articles improved by me, and where nobody complained.

--Launebee (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether it was a proposal or a proposed proposal or a proposal contingent on some other event, I think the intent is clear and I support it.

Your uncontroversial edits are appreciated. But you should not now be editing these articles at all. If you can provide these missing sources, just describe them (linking if they are online of course) on the article talk page, for example at the section Talk:Panthéon-Assas University#Sources to be added which I just created. They can be discussed there in need, but if they're online and good they'll just be checked and added. Sources supporting content can be in any language; If they are in French then there are several editors here who are quite capable of reading them. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Launebee has not yet provided any references, just this unhelpful edit which I am attempting to discuss on their user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been asked [263] to give my opinion regarding Launebee's work on Pantheon-Assas page. It seems very helpful to me. However, XTokyo's recent edits on Pantheon-Assas page appears to have been quite troublesome. Besides, the long-term personal attacks quoted in the request here are indeed concerning. Therefore I:

Oppose any topic ban of Launebee

Support a topic ban of XTokyo. --Benmit (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• support TBAN for both Launebee and XTokyo from editing about French academic institutions

This dispute has been through the following discussions here:

• May 2016 ANI thread
• Sept 2016 ANI thread
• Sept 2016 ANI thread
• Dec 2016 ANI thread
• April 2017 ANI thread
• May 2017 ANI thread

My input at the last ANI recommended TBANS for both editors, from editing about French academic institutions. That is still what I think. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those archive links. Very interesting. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

COI guideline is already pretty good

I just add this for completeness, as I said above that I'd look at clarifying the COI guideline to make it clear that disclosure of COI on another language Wikipedia is not acceptable, but rather that disclosure must be done on English Wikipedia if it affects articles on English Wikipedia.

It seems to me that it's already clear enough, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. The problem seems to be that the user concerned had either not read or had not understood the guideline (and in any case they seem to be denying COI), and if it's lack of understanding this is because their English is poor. And we can't do anything about either of those problems by improving the guideline.

So I propose no further action, and add this section just to make sure that nobody is misled by my comment above. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support for TBAN

I've looked over the six archives helpfully cited by Jytdog above. It seems to me that an indefinite TBAN on both Launebee and XIIIfromTOKYO, prohibiting direct edits to articles on French academic institutions but allowing contributions and discussion on the article talk pages, is the way to go at this stage. We have been here seven times now and need to do something a bit more effective.

Both users have been disruptive. This disruption is in response to a content dispute with regard to articles on French academic institutions. Neither editor is a native speaker of English, and possibly the disruption is unintentional. We do not need to decide this, it is still disruption.

Nor do we need to decide the content dispute. I do notice that one of them alleges in one of the ANI archives that the institution that they do not favour offers a fake education, and offers a French source for this claim. I hope this is a mistranslation! But even if sourced as claimed, to me it shows the danger of these two, with their limited English, editing the articles directly. This is a very sensitive matter, and all the more so if the source is being accurately cited.

This TBAN was I think proposed (I note that this is disputed above but think it's splitting hairs) by Power~enwiki [264] and they have asked not to be further pinged so we need to regard that as their final word.

The TBAN has been supported by a number of others, including myself. One of these proposed that the ban should be on XIIIfromTOKYO only. I note that the user proposing this is a recently created account and apparently also not a native speaker of English, who (rightly) disclosed that they were invited to the discussion by Launebee. Andrewa (talk) 08:56, 8 October 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.

Sockpuppet IP user

There's a likely sockpuppet who is vandalizing anything related to the Die Hard film series, including Die Hard 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Live Free or Die Hard and sometimes A Good Day to Die Hard. There was also vandalism in Die Hard, Die Hard Arcade, Die Hard Trilogy and Die Hard Trilogy 2: Viva Las Vegas. I know this because the user has the same first two numbers of the IP address 46.99 with different last two IP numbers. Here's the links of those IP addresses

• 46.99.25.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.99.60.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.99.79.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.99.118.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's the pages that are involved.

• Die Hard (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard with a Vengeance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Live Free or Die Hard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Good Day to Die Hard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard Arcade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard Trilogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die Hard Trilogy 2: Viva Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would report it to the WP:Sockpuppet investigations, but it's too complex for me to figure out how to do so. So I have to use here to do it. So please, investigate these IP addresses if you can. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this might be a dynamic IP, but it very well could be deliberate maneuvering. The best place to send this type of information is WP:AIV to report the vandal or WP:RFPP to protect the page. The range is just too wide for a rangeblock to be considered, IMO. Nihlus 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem already protected a bunch of them (thanks!) and I did a few more. I think that's about all we can do right now. For the record, I had no idea there were this many entities in that franchise--am I missing out? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know about the Die Hard franchise in paricular, but my general rule of thumb for franchises is that everything past #3 can be safely ignored. (And even #3 often isn't all that good, cf. Alien 3.) Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, Start Trek 5, for instance. Also, I've heard good things about Fast and Furious #37. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: There's is five Die Hard films with the sixth one in likely pre-production. There about five or six Die Hard games and a prequel comic-book series. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I range blocked 46.99.0.0/17 for three days. There's too much vandalism coming from here, and it seems to be spreading from Die Hard to other areas. Let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  @NinjaRobotPirate: You might want to consider blocking 46.99.134.0/24 as well. Nihlus 06:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  I can't tell if that's disruptive or not; it would depend on knowing something about the topic area (association football). There don't seem to be any recent warnings, either. The other stuff was pretty overt date vandalism, which is a lot easier (for me) to act on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Urgent - Ridiculous socking and vandalism - Rangeblock and semi-protection 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.

---

• Encantadia (2005 TV series)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [[265]]

Someone please block this range, semi-protect the page, and block the latest sock accounts. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you MastCell for semi-protecting the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

121.54.44.128/26 is a small range that should cover all of those IPs. Nihlus 05:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

New page being targeted: Pirena. Rangeblock still needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

/24 rangeblock applied for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 9 October 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.

Login attempts

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I received multiple failed login attempts today, plus at least one password reset attempt. No big deal, I use a Password manager so I use a strong password on Wikipedia, one which I don't use elsewhere. Additionally, I use Multi-factor authentication, so even if you guess my password (and you won't; it's strong and random), you still wouldn't be able to log in. Given the multiple login attempts, though, should I take any additional steps? My Wikipedia account isn't at risk, but this is obviously a malicious user. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have been told that two-factor authentication is a great thing, and that I shouldn't have to worry about such attempts. I get them regularly after blocking a troll or a sock, and I believe my ArbCom colleagues get these notes quite regularly as well. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yamla:, this is most likely Virajmishra, you've declined some of the unblock requests from his socks, he's been trying to log in to my account and has even asked for password resets (the password reset emails log the IP, which is how I know it's him) and he's done that to JamesBWatson (a few sections above) too. Nothing much to do, I get the worst of his actions because I block the socks, and he does the same crap here and at Commons. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah! I was wondering who it was. Yeap. Sounds good, thanks. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

False accusation of 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.

---

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi reverted this edit of mine citing WP:DENY, meaning that it was trolling or vandalism, but it was nothing of the sort, simply being my opinion contributing to the discussion. I tried to raise the issue with that editor but that attempt was reverted without explanation. Surely such a false accusation of vandalism or trolling merits some administrator action? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And now I see that the same editor has reverted my perfectly valid comment in this AfD discussion. I suppose I'll have to go back through my contribution history now to see what else that editor has done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your username? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I edit revealing my IP address rather than hiding behind a silly pseudonym. Look at my contribution record if you don't believe me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at your contributions, which is why I do not believe you. Again, what is your username? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• @The Quixotic Potato: The username is User:Vote (X) for Change, and this page is relevant. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I know, but I also knew he wouldn't be able to admit that. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea who User:Vote (X) for Change might be, never having heard of that editor before, and my edit to Jimbo's talk page was the first time that I have ever posted there. Once again, if you really looked at my contributions, rather than jumping to conclusions and lying about having done so, you would see that this is true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed TQP's bogus closure per the thread below. If an admin thinks this is out-of-process, I'll accept that decision, but I think it would be appropriate for the IP's complaint to be addressed by someone with a little more credibility than this thread's original closer. Lepricavark (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Could you please provide some evidence as to why you think this IP is a sock of Vote (X) for Change? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Second this request. I've compared this IP user to your "relevant" page and I don't even see a connection. Vote (X) appears to be a serial IP-hopper easily recognizable by their distinct behavior. I can't even see where you're drawing any sort of similarities. To me, this is a static IP who doesn't go near (X)'s stomping grounds, with a clean block log and no apparent indicators of bad faith. Either you're seeing something the rest of us aren't seeing, in which case you need to tell us now, or you owe the IP an apology. Swarm ♠ 01:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the suspicion is from the combination of circumstantial evidence, ranges from advocacy-like comment on Jimbo's talk page (the focal point of this report), high recent activity in WP:AN/I, previously expressing displeasure over an administrator, and finally overlapping with IP range of Vote (X) as an IP from London with Virgin Media. I wouldn't blame anyone for the initial false alarm, but a deeper look into the contribution history would seem to suggest it's a different person. Alex Shih^Talk 05:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I waited until User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had had a chance to post here before replying, but it is now beyond the "later this afternoon" when I expected a reply according the post below. None of the things that you identify in any way suggest that I might be a sockpuppet of that other user. Making one post at Jimbo's talk page that makes a perfectly valid point does not, I certainly don't have high activity at WP:AN/I, having contributed significantly to just one other thread recently where everyone except one agreed with me, my expression of displeasure about an admin nine months ago was also universally agreed with (and what regular Wikipedia editor hasn't felt displeasure about an admin at some point), and there are many hundreds of thousands of Virgin Media customers in London, let alone outside London where I am. None of this in any way approaches the sort of evidence that should lead to my edits being reverted as vandalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Will the prisoner at the bar please stand Well. This seems, as EEng says, to have gone somewaht spectacularly Pete Tong over night. I have no idea what TQP was thinking of by getting so personally attached to the scenario, but the consequence was certainly inevitable. As for me- I must say in advance that I won't be able to get that involved until later this afternoon (UTC), but just a quickie for now. Firstly and fulsomely an apology is definitely owed to the IP if they are not and have no connection with Vote X. This is not a non-apology I hasten to add- more of a placeholder. On that, I would just like to take us back to where this began (Jimbo's talk, as someone pointed out). You see, if this IP isn't VXfC (and Alex Shih pretty cogently sums up my thought proceses on how it could be- especially combined with the fact that it is- sorry Swarm you're wrong on this- a dynamic IP rather than static, which effectively ticks all the Vote X boxes), then they rather unluckilly chose to defend them. See; my attention was originally drawn to Special:Contributions/88.104.33.149 ([266]) on JW's talk, as VXfC, and it was {incidentally on a side note you might want to compare User:Abnormallylong, who has interactions with a very similar IP with some crossover). As 88. says themselves, they were responding to that IPs treatment in their original complaint to JW. Special:Contributions/88.104.33.149 IP is also VXfC and is clearly related to Abnormallylong; I concluded that the Herts IP (who has started this thread) was not distinct. Incidentally, Paul August could you please not try and rush prople along just because you think they've had enough time? I've only just bloody woken up! And now I'm Right Away- back in a few hours. — fortunavelut luna 09:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Sorry about that. Didn't mean to rush you. Paul August ☎ 13:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: no problem at all, and apologies if I sounded slightly brusque back there. — fortunavelut luna 18:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical note: unless they were representing themself, the prisoner would be in the dock, not at the bar. --Shirt58 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks, your response seems more than adequate. Paul August ☎ 14:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the static vs. dynamic thing, I know that my address is defined as dynamic, because there is no guarantee that it will remain the same, but in practice it has remained the same since Virgin last upgraded my connection a couple of years ago. Every edit from that address except the one in 2007 was made by me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Could you please respond to the above? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 09:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Has now responded above. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A very poor response. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi presumably linked 88.104.33.149 to "Vote (x) for change" because of [267] and [268]. That removal was questioned by Viennese Waltz (User talk:Tevildo#VoteX) and red flags should have been raised by previous queries about the identification on the same user talk page in June and September 2016. Even allowing for Fortuna possibly not having seen this [269], which was removed by the talk page owner, he can do us all a favour (as far as identifying sockpuppets is concerned) by going back to sleep. 31.49.40.208 (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, you implied in your post yesterday morning that you would be able to get involved in this by 24 hours ago, but you still haven't responded despite making other edits. I try not to get upset by such trivial matters as Wikipedia editing, but do find it upsetting when someone impugns my integrity and refuses to withdraw. You have ruined my weekend. Please either raise an WP:SPI report about me or acknowledge that you made a silly mistake based on extremely tenuous so-called "evidence". In fact it's even more tenuous than I described in my reply to Alex Shih above, because I see from this page that you link above that that editor has used all of the major UK ISPs, so the fact that I am a Virgin Media customer doesn't come into it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well of course I am very sorry for ruining your weekend like that. It's also true I said I'd post again later; I realised- later- that of course there was little else necessary to say, as I had already accounted for my actions per (in this case, non-admin-)Wikipedia:Request an account- as an administrator had requested above. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You said that I was due an apology if I had no connection with that other editor. You still haven't acknowledged that you made a mistake in making that connection when a quick glance at my talk page and my contributions would have shown that there is no such connection. Any apology without such an acknowledgment is meaningless. Please do so so that this discussion can be closed, and most importantly, let us know that in the future you will base your actions on evidence rather than prejudice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I'm still waiting for that apology that you said I was due, not for ruining my weekend but for accusing me with no reasonable evidence of being a vandal and a sockpuppet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; clearly, however since the previous conditions ceased to appertain, I was forced, as you will understand, to restructure the parametrical conditions of any subsequent reciprocation; viz. that an admin promulgated an unequivocal instruction and another, antiphonically yet disparately, acknowledged my contentment of the precedentally-required paradigm. Would you like to close this discussion or wait for it to archive? Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that you withdraw your accusations of vandalism, trolling and sockpuppetry, which you still haven't done. If you had behaved like this 200 years ago I would be demanding satisfaction in a different way. No admin has told you not to withdraw your accusations, and The Quixotic Potato is still using them to justify the behaviour that led to a block. I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to acknowledge that you were wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well; clearly your threats of assault with a deadly weapon are a joke, although luckily where I'm from we know when to joke about such things- and when not to. Look. There are two points to be made, and they dove-tail neatly. An administrator told me: in which case you need to tell us now, or you owe the IP an apology (my emph.); I did the former. Following that, another administrator told me that my response seems more than adequate. I intend to take no more part in this rather tiresome conversation (have you noticed, btw, that no-one else has for over two days?), as it has gone on long enough. Many thanks for your understanding, — fortunavelut luna 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, time to move on with your life. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So I'm supposed to let false, baseless, accusations stand against me without the person who made them withdrawing them? This is supposed to be a collaborative project where we treat each other with respect. Don't tell me to move on when my integrity has been impugned without any redress. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you that FIM is the first to treat people respectfully. He is a helpful editor and a bloody good laugh and will put himself out wherever he can. Now, I can't speak for this case, but I had one, literally a few days ago, whereby a lesser person to FIM threatened to take me, and others, to ARBCOM because we dared to go against them at an AfD (which I can't mention) and they became upset when I offered them some advice on their talk page. An administrator (who I will also not name) decided that they wanted to become involved at the AfD and told three people (me included, oddly enough) to knock it off. Sadly, by that time, other spin-off disputes had started and said administrator, who I approached as an involved admin, decided that he was now bored of being involved and flounced off telling me that he hoped his "career" on Wikipedia would not involve him "having to run into [my] ass again". Charming. All I wanted was an apology from the editor I was in dispute with for making threats towards me and I believed the administrator could help me achieve this. He didn't, which I wasn't, in hindsight, altogether surprised about. The point of all this is: don't waste your time seeking out apologies. FIM is not at fault here and he is a good person to have in your side. That, sadly, is where the similarity to my case ends, as the person I was in a dispute with turned out to confirm my suspicions that he was a bit of a prat. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Damnit, and I was really hoping never to run into your ass again--lo and behold, you ping me telepathically. Man. I did half a job, which is more than I usually do, and this is my thanks.... Tragic. Cassianto, you've been a big meanie to me for years, and you're asking me to get an apology on your behalf, from an editor with whom I have never had a positive interaction with? Happy days... Drmies (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not playing this out here again, Drmies. You were involved; I came to you as you were involved; you did nothing as you no longer wanted to be involved; I was disappointed and told you so; enough said. I'm not a meanie to everyone, contrary to popular belief, so read into that what you will. You've made your feelings clear. Happy days. Cassianto^Talk 22:02, 10 October 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.

Adding User:The Quixotic Potato to my previous 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.

---

The non-admin close of my discussion above was clearly inappropriate. I have no idea who User:Vote (X) for Change might be, but would welcome an WP:SPI case to clear that up, and, as I have already said, my record speaks for itself in that I am not a vandal or a troll. The irony here is that the original thread on Jimbo's talk page that sparked this off was about how badly editors who choose to reveal their IP addresses are treated, and that two editors here have demonstrated exactly that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You are indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikipedia under any account or IP address. Appeals, should you desire to make one, may be directed to the Arbitration Committee and their Ban Appeals Subcommittee. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No I am not banned, because I'm very obviously not the person that was banned. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhhhh, and what exactly are you asking from admins? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Some level of normalcy I'd imagine. FYI guys, this doesn't look like Vote (X). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for these two editors to be prevented from harrassing me by accusing me without evidence of being a vandal or a troll. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your username? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I answered that question before you made your invalid close of my thread above. I might as well as you what your IP address is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

See my contributions. I've been on this IP address for nearly two years, and I've given on my talk page the two addresses that I used prior to that. I'm sorry, but I don't have a record of my addresses beyond the nearly four years covered there. Is that compulsory to avoid the gross violation of WP:AGF that you are committing here? And, if your 127.0.0.1 was meant as a joke, it isn't funny. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

127.0.0.1 Which other IP addresses have you used? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is really not a productive line of enquiry. I know it can be difficult to tell sometimes, but can we not remove comments unless the user is banned? If in doubt, see if there's any admin who is prepared to make the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The user is banned. You can propose that socks should not be reverted unless they're blocked/banned as well, but I am not sure if that is a good idea. Maybe you can start a discussion at the policy section of the village pump? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is banned? Vote (X) or this user? There's little similarity between the two. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not me who is banned. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) See my contributions. I've been on this IP address for nearly two years, and I've given on my talk page the two addresses that I used prior to that. I'm sorry, but I don't have a record of my addresses beyond the nearly four years covered there. Is that compulsory to avoid the gross violation of WP:AGF that you are committing here? And, if your 127.0.0.1 was meant as a joke, it isn't funny. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am too pessimistic. Maybe I should've doubted FIM more. I noticed that after vandalfighting for a while people become really pessimistic about IP editors. I'll do some research when I am back at a desktop computer. If you are genuinely curious about why people mistrust some IP editors then I would recommend spending some time fighting vandalism (but using some of the tools does require having an account). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no "maybe" about it. By your actions you have prevented me from improving Wikipedia this evening, but rather involved me in a completely unnecessary argument here. And those actions include your bare-faced lie that you had looked at my contributions before starting this ridiculous witch hunt. You really need to change your thinking completely if you are to be an asset to Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Seems I was too kind. I'll go back to being my normal jaded self again. Good luck collaborating with others. If you act like this then it is irrelevant if you are Vote X or not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. There is nothing funny or "maybe" about making potentially false accusations, especially sockpuppetry. Either you provide diffs for your accusations or it can be considered a personal attack. There nothing to lol about. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You really seem intent on carrying on digging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato:: What is your evidence for accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet of user:Vote (X) for Change? And if you no longer think so, then you owe the IP an apology. Paul August ☎ 23:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That IP owes me an apology. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What for? For being upset about accusations with no apparent evidence? You should provide evidence or apologize. Paul August ☎ 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Read the above. The IP owes me an apology. Stop wasting my time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone is seriously full of themself. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy. Are you? Not based on above and below. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that (((The Quixotic Potato))) is a little out of line here. They're throwing around accusations and presenting no evidence. I've looked at the IP's contributions and they're good for the most part, some misguided but not vandalism. On the otherhand (((The Quixotic Potato))) editing history is much more colourful than the IPs. I also think (((The Quixotic Potato)))'s closure of the IP's previous section was completely improper and they severely overstepped their editing bounds by non-admin closing such a section they were heavily involved in. Canterbury Tail talk 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is unlikely that your comment achieves anything constructively, so I am going to selectively ignore people here now. Stop wasting my time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor's comments to Jimbo's talk page that started this whole thing also seem perfectly reasonable and it appears the IP is being hounded by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Quixotic at this point. I call for both users to cease what their are doing around this IP and apologise. This is not acceptible Wikipedian behaviour from two long term editors who should know better. And BTW Quixotic, people questioning your behaviour on here is not a waste of your time, in fact your actions so far are a waste of everyone else's time. Canterbury Tail talk 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to stop wasting my time. You should apologize to me for your false accusation, and mirela and the IP should apologize to me for their personal attacks. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is a waste of your time, you do not have to keep responding. Nobody is likely to give you the last word, which seems to be what you are after, while you persist with this arrogant attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgive you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be wrapped up with a 24–72 hour block of TQP while the IP's complaint above is investigated and/or addressed. I have no doubt that FIM is acting in good faith. I can't say the same for TQP. Lepricavark (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems I was too kind. Again. Heck, I'll forgive you again. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For what, my good man, am I being forgiven? Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Either provide evidence for your accusations, or apologize (everyone makes mistakes). Those really are the only two honorable courses of action available to you. It's as simple as that. Paul August ☎ 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgive you, because you would act differently if you knew what I know. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough of that. I've blocked TQP for making continued accusations without evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just about to do so myself. Though I wasn't thinking of being quite so lenient. Canterbury Tail talk 00:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

QEDK's daily livelihood

- EEng

Picks up extra work on Saturdays

- EEng

• There was real artistry in the way that thread combined the grace of a ballet with the fascination of an inexorable train wreck. EEng 05:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• We have at least one admin who's an expert at spotting Vote(X)'s garbage, and I've asked him to look into this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• This reminds me of me, except I was much less forward that this. Anyway, the point being TQP was out of line and responding like that in kind didn't help them much; they just need a break and cool down I believe. I can imagine what EEng means, that's my daily livelihood. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:06, 9 October 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.

Login attempts

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I received multiple failed login attempts today, plus at least one password reset attempt. No big deal, I use a Password manager so I use a strong password on Wikipedia, one which I don't use elsewhere. Additionally, I use Multi-factor authentication, so even if you guess my password (and you won't; it's strong and random), you still wouldn't be able to log in. Given the multiple login attempts, though, should I take any additional steps? My Wikipedia account isn't at risk, but this is obviously a malicious user. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have been told that two-factor authentication is a great thing, and that I shouldn't have to worry about such attempts. I get them regularly after blocking a troll or a sock, and I believe my ArbCom colleagues get these notes quite regularly as well. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yamla:, this is most likely Virajmishra, you've declined some of the unblock requests from his socks, he's been trying to log in to my account and has even asked for password resets (the password reset emails log the IP, which is how I know it's him) and he's done that to JamesBWatson (a few sections above) too. Nothing much to do, I get the worst of his actions because I block the socks, and he does the same crap here and at Commons. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah! I was wondering who it was. Yeap. Sounds good, thanks. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User proposing articles on black queer artists for deletion??

I am not sure how to deal with this, so I leave it to you all. I happened to notice that User GetSomeUtah has proposed three articles on black queer artists for deletion in the space of an hour. The articles all appear to be reasonably notable to me. I found great refs for some of them. I am reporting it here as it seems like way too much of a coincidence: all black, all artists, all queer. The articles are Lola Flash, Paul Sepuya and Shari Carpenter.104.163.152.238 (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no mystery here. Everyone is welcome to look at my talk page to see what SuggestBot proposed needed work and then link that up with my contribution history. SuggestBot also alerted me to the weak entry for Bob O'Dekirk, whose one-sentence article I proposed for deletion. Is Mr. O'Dekirk black and queer? I don't know. I haven't been keeping track. I do know that so far members of the Wikipedia community have been voting to delete Shari Carpenter and Paul Sepuya (along with O'Dekirk, too), and anyone who has "great refs" is always welcome to put them to use in improving those articles. There's no need to wait until they're on the verge of deletion. The Carpenter article, in particular, was created by a student as a class project, according to the user talk page and the article's edit history. Mr. Sepuya looks like a serious artist, although his article needs help with reliable sourcing and notability. This is a case, again, where "great refs" will help. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If "great refs" exist then WP:BEFORE should find them. AFAICT, "created by a student as a class project" is not a reason for deletion, but is a reason to follow WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Black and/or queer artists are subject to exactly the same notability guidelines as everybody else. I've looked at the nominations (2xAfD, 1xPROD) and found no objectionable behavior, so WP:AGF is in full effect. I do not see any need for admin intervention. If you have great refs, please insert them into the article and leave a comment to that effect at the AfD. Kleuske (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistant OR by Hezdor

• Hezdor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Similar to the section above, a user has been engaging in OR and poorly sourced list entries on List of terrorist incidents in September 2017 and List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 (as well as other related lists). Repeatedly, this user adds entries where the source does not either explicitly call the event terrorism or ascribe the event to a "violent non-state actor for political, religious, or ideological motives".

Despite warnings and attempts to communicate on the user's talk page, Hezdor continues the behavior. It appears that this user feels they need to add anything listed on the "global terrorism database page".

The behavior is continuing, hence this ANI report. Diffs: [270] (removed [271]), [272] (removed [273]), [274] (removed [275]), [276] (removed [277]). Some edits contained copy-paste from sources ([278] and [279] as seen in this edit).

Submitting now (computer crashed but thankfully saved this). Will add more. Done for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've blocked them. They haven't responded, but the main problem is that they've added large amounts of copyright material to articles. Of course they can be unblocked if they show they understand the problem and show some evidence of how they will fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just adding that they have never responded to messages on their talk page or taken part in a discussion elsewhere. They were warned in May by User:NeilN that if they didn't respond they might be blocked. They are a single purpose account only editing these lists, and I don't know how much copyvio will have to be cleared up. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, copyright violations, self-promotion and defamatory content

• Janefirst2000 (talk · contribs)
• 68.198.169.190 (talk · contribs)
• Herbert B. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• York, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts belonging to self-professed granddaughter of Herbert B. Cohen, adding copyright violation content, edit warring and WP:OWNERSHIP of his biography to unencyclopedic ends. Adding unsourced and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to York, Pennsylvania [280], [281]. Using Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions for personal ends, including personal accusations against others [282], [283]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:Cullen328, who have had something to do with this. The content at LACE are completely unacceptable, for reasons given by the IP editor above. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I haven't had much to do with the LACE article at all; but yeah, there's certianly issues there. Possible revdel required? -the accusations of libel. I left a message about her grandfather's article but that was really just the adition of a load of closely-paraphrased cruft- whereas this is venom. Thanks for ping btw. Night! — fortunavelut luna 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, I am aware of this situation and received a massive wall-of-text talk page message from this new editor, which you kindly moved to the correct spot. Sadly, I have been derelict in my Wikipedia duties for many hours today because of the demands of my family and professional life. But I will now write a lengthy response that will attempt to set our new friend straight. The LACE stuff was a 30 year old grudge and WAY out of line, while the additions to her notable grandfather's biography were not much better. Keeping my fingers crossed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I think I accidentally messed up your signature above, and I do not want to make matters worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(I think I've fixed it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK. Drmies and anyone else interested, I have replied to this new editor on my talk page. I will now leave a note for her on her talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The user has replied on my talk page, if anyone is interested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it that when a new editor capitalizes words which are not usually capitalized in modern English – in this case "Art", "Artist" and "Visual Artist", "Writer", "IP Theft", "Copyright", "Grandfather", "Libel" – they're almost invariably trying to either WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or pushing a WP:FRINGE theory? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, those also go with certain vitamin deficiencies, too. Anmccaff (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Really? Never heard of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all, especially Cullen328, for taking the time to draft an extensive response to the user in question. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Investigative reporter"

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.

---

• Investigativereporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This. I have not yet notified the editor, as I'd like some other opinions first as to whether there's anything to notify them about. General Ization ^Talk 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, they aren't WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia for starters. Secondly, their actions look very much like someone who has had an account here for an extended period of time. They aren't new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, I guess that settles that. Thanks, Dennis. General Ization ^Talk 15:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked him. The explanation is found on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Dennis, that was a necessary block, but I'm not comfortable with the reasons (which could be due to me parsing your wording too closely, in which case we probably agree more than I think). I mention it not to defend this troll, but because more and more i see us applying WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale in ways I don't think are right. The key needs to be not only that they are not building an encyclopedia, but they are hindering, in some way, other people's ability to do so. I guess WP:NOTFACEBOOK is needed just because, if we don't enforce it, it would open floodgates. But this is different. If this was a legit reporter, I really don't think WP:NOTHERE and WP:PAID would apply, and I think/hope you'd get some substantial pushback. In fact, I have a vague recollection that the WMF has allowed/invited researchers to create accounts to study something, rather than contribute articles. This block is good because this is some troll pretending to be a reporter (pro tip: actual reporters are happy to identify themselves, and are quite open about giving you an easy way to verify they are who they say they are, and aren't just trying to stir up disputes further). So I don't necessarily want to drag this thread out because ultimately it was a good block, but just want to plant the seed in the minds of people reading this thread that we need to be careful before using WP:NOTHERE as a rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I pondered that as well, and had that been the only issue, I wouldn't have blocked. He is here to make money (lets assume he IS a reporter for now), however, and while this doesn't go against the letter of our policies on paid editing, it does go against the spirit as there was no disclosure. Is he really a reporter? I don't know. If he is and that is the only reason he is here, he needs to disclose. I'm also convinced this is an experienced editor, which is why I linked WP:SOCK, as this is likely either a banned editor, or an editor using a second account for reasons other than those listed in WP:SOCK (which I also linked). That alone is sufficient justification and I would have felt confident in making that block with other circumstances. Is he trolling? I think so, but that is harder to demonstrate, so I didn't touch on it. It was one of those weird blocks where it was a combination of factors, but in the end, they need to be blocked and the reasoning isn't so singular, so it is hard to articulate. With that in mind, I don't disagree with your assessment, but I also think you get my reasoning. And yes, WP:HERE is overused and sometimes dangerously so, we agree on that. He is here to promote his own self-interest however, which does fall under one of the NOTHERE categories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. He showed up on my page after a WP:ANEW spat. I just told him "no" and ignored him. My guess is that he is some Wikipedia drama blogger or something stupid like that. Nihlus 22:12, 10 October 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.

EdJohnston warn me to block 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.

---

• Biswajeet34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3RR complaint about Biswajeet34 warring at Ho people

EdJohnston warn me to block me without proper justification.. I am a research scholar of Anthropology,history and sociology and law and governance of reputed institute. I want to contribute to wikipedia articles with proper historic evidences and reliable resources.butEdJohnston warn me to block me without any proof which is the violation of wikipedia editing policies.so,please protect me so that i can conribute to wikipedia with more accurate ,reliable sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswajeet34 (talk • contribs)

• If anything, EdJohnston was very accommodating of you. You have not taken on board any of the feedback given to you so far and show no interest in doing so, even here. —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• For background, see the back-and-forth at Biswajeet34. (I'm llnking to a version that was before they started removing a lot of warnings, so you can see the warnings). I'm also leaving a ping for User:WilliamThweatt who is the experienced contributor who was trying to make improvements at the article on Ho people, but ran into puzzling opposition from Biswajeet34 there. This led to William filing a complaint at the 3RR board. Based on further study after the 3RR closure, and the editor's failure to respond to warnings on their talk page, I now believe that a WP:CIR block of Biswajeet34 should be considered. As a response to one of the 3RR warnings, Biswajeet34 stated "Please edit Ho Tribe wikipedia by accurate,reliable sources with proper history,anthropology knowledges.please donot vandalise the Ho tribe wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswajeet34 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)". I suggest that this editor's mastery of English may not be sufficient to get him through editing disagreements here, especially when he seems to advance his POV so vigorously and seems not to be listening to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Bishonen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I was writing that but got an edit conflict. I listed several urls on EdJohnston's talk page where the editor removed any mention of Hindi or Hindu. A very clear agenda. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 11 October 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.

Apparent "creation" of BLP signatures and their use in infoboxes

Admins, I hope I'm in the right place. Just seeking advice as to whether it's legitimate to create signatures and add them to BLP infoboxes, as decorations, it appears. This raises several issues:

• No verification is provided of whether these signatures are the real ones, and if so, how they were acquired; surely the file description pages should state whether they were copied from the original or a copy of it.
• Is it a potential invasion of privacy?
• Is it a security breach? The display presumably makes it a proposition to forge the BLP's signature in real life.
• What does it add to readers' understanding of the topic?

We don't seem to have a stated policy—just an essay of dubious status that doesn't really help.

I've alerted the editor to this thread. Tony (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify your link. WP:SLR is not an essay but a WikiProject which served its stated purpose and is now defunct. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. Sorry, now fixed. Tony (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Great points...had fake problem at MJs page many years ago. I see no need for them.--Moxy (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether they're real or not, we don't need to be aiding and abetting forgers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Richard Harris died 15 years ago, this is not a BLP issue. A Google Image search for "autograph richard harris" produces dozens of examples of his signature, and he did have the idiosyncrasy of capitalizing his last name. Since "Infobox person" incorporates a signature field, it is to be expected that some editors will try to fill it. As for abetting forgery, that is a problem in the autograph market and perhaps elsewhere, but the fact that I could find dozens of examples of the Harris signature in ten seconds indicates that Wikipedia is not driving the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of them are of living people, though. Plus; the comments say "signature of XXX" instead of "my re-creation of signature of XXX". IMO, they should all be deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just get rid of the "signature" field, which is of dubious encyclopedic value. Or, if not, add fields for fingerprints and photographs of a lock of the subject's hair. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

+1 - I've never ever seen the point to these signature fields and IMHO I agree with BMK this option should be removed from infoboxes (and then all signatures here deleted) (Perhaps there should be an RFC on this?) - What encyclopedic value do these actually serve ? ... none as far as i can tell. –Davey2010^Talk 20:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never understood the reasoning behind having people's signatures either. Maybe a mention in the article and a non-recreation picture somewhere if there's actually something noteworthy about it, but if it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article there doesn't seem to me to be a reason to include it. But that's probably a discussion better held on a Village pump. And if we're going down that road don't forget iris scans and genetic code! ansh666 20:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with BMK and Davey. This, for instance, is a complete joke and offers no benefit whatsoever. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As above. Immediate RfC required. Get shot of them. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 21:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see the value in having the signatures of say, American presidents, whose signatures are employed to codify laws. But signatures of film actors? I also think this would make for a useful RfC. A Train^talk 21:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I've started an RfC at VPP on a proposal to remove signature fields from infoboxes. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I created some of the signature images under discussion. These are genuine autographs that I have and have scanned in and saved as image files. Let me know what I should do, whether that be edit the image descriptions or delete them. Thanks :)

Penpalthe (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous account changing film articles

The edits made by the anonymous user here are minor but so far 100% inaccurate, if not vandalism. This person is mostly changing the amounts of box office earnings mentioned in film articles. If they're meant to be updates, the numbers are not supported by of the sources given (and some of these numbers were "updated" to be lower, so it's not a reflection of a movie earning more over time). The user has also incorrectly changed the name of a waterway and posted a falsehood in a list of films. I've corrected/reverted everything so far. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: thanks for taking the time to fix and report this. However, it's difficult to take action when an editor hasn't been warned. If you go into your preferences and click on the Gadgets tab, you can enable Twinkle under Browsing. Twinkle will assist you in warning vandals and other disruptive editors. Once they've been appropriately warned (typically, four warnings – see WP:WARNVAND), you can use Twinkle to report them to WP:AIV. Twinkle also has other useful functions, such as nominating an article for deletion and requesting page protection. Unfortunately, Twinkle won't write an article for you, but maybe that will come in a new update. If you'd rather not use Twinkle, you could add warnings manually, like {{subst:uw-error2}} ~~~~. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks so much for your reply. This end of Wikipedia is very much not my strong suit - it's only recently that I've moved beyond doing minor copy edits. I'm afraid I don't understand how to warn an IP user who has no talk page. I've never actually warned anyone. If you could point me to a resource on this, I'd be glad to try and figure it out. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: a lot of this stuff seems complicated at first, but it's surprisingly easy once you get the hang of it. If you click on the talk page tab as usual, you'll see options to create the page or start a new section. If you're using the default interface style for Wikipedia (ugh, it's ugly), they should be in the upper right. Either is fine, but starting a new section is easier because it allows you to comfortably enter a subject header, like "warning" or "about your recent edits". Twinkle can take care of all this stuff for you, which is one reason why I like it. The problem with Twinkle, however, is that communicating through templates is a bit impersonal. Sometimes I like to write my own messages. For further information, you might want to check out Help:Talk pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU). The CVU is good for asking questions and stuff, but you can always ask questions on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: That is excellent information, and helped me more than probably the last ten pages I read of the editors' handbook. Thank you so much for taking the time! Jessicapierce (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Help to log in

I seem to have become unlogged and WP will not log me in again with my usual password. I've requested change of password but it does not send it to my email...and in fact has not been sending notifications to that address for several weeks. My User name is Mzilikazi1939 and I'd be very grateful if someone can suggest a way out of this dilemma. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just create a new user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I need to connect with my long watch list. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any responsible admin would agree to what you're asking. There's no way to confirm that the ID in question is actually yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Mzilikazi1939 (talk · contribs) was logged on earlier today. If the password got changed, the account will probably need to be indef'd - and you'll need to set up a new account. As to the watch list, that will be evident from the editing history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this editor seems not to have an email address associated with the account link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of the situation where the system has changed the password without a request from the user. However, I have heard of multiple situations where the user thought they were using the right password but eventually realize they were using the wrong password. I hope that's the case here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This sounds way too fishy to me. There's no way to confirm that the IP is indeed the user. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is just me, what I would do, but if I wasn't able to log on for some reason, I would do one of two things:

• (1) If it appeared as if the problem was not going to be solved, I would immediately start a new ID, connect the old one to it with a redirect, and start recreating my watchlist from the publicly available contribution list of my old ID. I'd certainly get most of them that way, and other ones could be added as I remembered them.
• (2) If it seemed as if this was a temporary set-back, and I'd be able to get back into my account eventually, I'd simply make edits with whatever IP I'm on or I'd make a temporary ID as in #1 and reverse the redirects when I recovered my account.

It does not seem as if either of these things have happened here. The IP hasn't made any more edits aside from those about recovering their account, and the Mzilikazi1939 user pages haven't been redirected.

As I said, that's just what I would do, but it does seem like a logical and reasonable response to such a dilemma, and the IP hasn't taken those steps -- unless they created a new account and haven't gotten around to connecting it with the old one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the case here, but I have a sockfarm (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Virajmishra) that tries to log into my account and has requested password resets too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

My attention has been brought here because the editor's first action using this IP address was to post on my talk page asking for help. Bishonen, acting in her capacity as an official talk page stalker, then posted to that page suggesting posting here about it.

Recently I received a notification of a failed attempt by someone else to log into my account. Once before someone requested a password reset on my account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It may well be irrelevant, but I see that I declined an unblock request from one of the sockpuppets on the sockfarm that SpacemanSpiff mentioned, and removed its talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The chap uses a Jio mobile connection, typically he has IPv4 addresses starting with 47. and numerous ranges of IPv6. If your notifications mentioned an IP from those ranges then it's him. I routinely request global locking for named socks as the nuisance extends to multiple projects. —SpacemanSpiff 10:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Unfortunately the recent notification of an attempted log in doesn't tell me the IP address. All it says is "There has been a failed attempt to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." The attempted password reset was quite a while ago, and I don't think it was in any way related. I don't really know why I mentioned it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems to reside in a failed attempt to set up a new Google account using the Mzilikazi name, so there's no email associated with it. Surely there's an Administrator who can authenticate via the IP that I am who I claim to be (it happened when WP Editor accused me of socking back in 2014) and then offer a way out of my dilemma. Creating a new personality is a poor option; I have over 400 articles on my old watch list. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm hopelessly untechy. Now I've created a new persona, HOW do I reconnect it with Mzilikazi1939, please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: alias Mzilikazi1939 alias 78.151.173.252: first of all, I have every sympathy with you. You are evidently finding this situation very frustrating, and I really wish there were something I could do to help you. Unfortunately, though, since you don't have an email associated with your original account and you don't have a committed identity as far as I know there is no way of getting access to your old account back, unless you discover that you have forgotten the password but have managed to find it or remember it again. You say "Surely there's an Administrator who can authenticate via the IP that I am who I claim to be". There are people, known as CheckUsers, who have access to tools which enable them to do this, but there are very strict rules about wheat purposes they are allowed to use those tools for, to protect editors' confidentiality, and I am pretty sure this is not one of the situations where they are allowed to do it. The policy Wikipedia:CheckUser says "Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing", which does not cover your situation. Also, even if a CheckUser confirms that the two accounts you have used are the same person, he or she would not have access to the technical tools to reset your password, and whether it would be possible for him or her to get one of the technical people to do it I don't know. You can try asking a CheckUser to help if you like, but I am 99.99% certain that it will be a waste of your time. There is a list of CheckUsers at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Users with CheckUser permissions. I'm afraid you will almost certainly just have to accept that you have lost your old account, unless you discover a password that you had forgotten.

You ask "HOW do I reconnect it with Mzilikazi1939, please?" If you mean how do you get it to give you access to things like the old watch list, I'm afraid the answer is that you can't. The only sense in which you can connect the two accounts together is to put notes on their user pages and/or talk pages saying something like "This is an alternative account of xxxx. I created the second account because yyyy .... etc". Once again, I do have every sympathy with you in what must be a very frustrating situation, but I'm afraid I can't offer you anything better than this, and I guess if there were a solution to your problem then someone would by now have come up with it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy, James. It's a pity to wave goodbye to a 7-year history under that name, but I'll take your word for it. I really don't remember changing the password, but if I did there isn't a record of it in the file I keep of such things. I've already left a note on the Sweetpool page. But what I was seeking advice on above was in connection with a suggestion from Beyond My Ken yesterday: "If it appeared as if the problem was not going to be solved, I would immediately start a new ID and connect the old one to it with a redirect". Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you can't "connect" the two accounts in terms of having your old edits added to your new edits, all you can do is to put redirects on your old user pages so that that transfer to your new ones. This is what I eventually did with User:Before My Ken and User:Between My Ken (which you can take a look at to see what I did), but the edits I made with those earlier accounts are forever disconnected from the edits I've made since 2009 with this account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you need help, I can talk you through the process. Just let me know on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous socking with violation of WP:VER

109.97.246.194 (previously editig as 109.96.58.6) keeps adding continuously birth/death details to biographies of Romanian politicians of previous centuries, always without sources, violating WP:VER, despite the fact he was warned regarding this issue. These data are not easily verifiable [on Internet], and are potentially false. In a few articles they was reverted by me, in other by other user(s), and in a few places like Ion Creangă (politician) and Teodor Bârcă they pushed their changes repeatedly via two different anonymous user "accounts" (sock contributions intersection) after intermediary reverts by Number 57.
This is also a well-known case on Romanian Wikipedia, where it was reported several times, and a number of IP addresses and ranges with identical ed. pattern were blocked (e.g. 92.83.126.46, 109.97.246.194, 109.96.0.0/16). --XXN, 15:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Previously an abuse filter created by MusikAnimal was used to stop them as they always used the article title as an edit summary. Unfortunately they seem to have worked out not to do that now so their edits are getting through. Perhaps a range block would work? I came across them some time ago when they were adding what often turned out to be false birth/death dates/places to Israeli politicians of Romanian descent. Number 57 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research at WTOL?

We have a potential edit war going on at WTOL; Klschepler keeps adding irrelevant information; he may have used original research. [284] [285] [286] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just declined a request for page protection at RFPP. The only way an edit war can be going on is if you are participating. Has there been any attempt at resolving this on the article talk page? If so I'm not seeing it. Try engaging in conversation with the other editor before jumping to the noticeboards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Klschepler is clearly vandalizing the page; WTOL is not a 'low-power' station and is definitely licensed as a full-power station, and it seems like they're axe-grinding that they can't get the station where they live (WTOL transmits as a VHF station serving northwest Ohio and it's likely all they need is a better antenna). No need for a noticeboard on this one unless they continue; next edit should be a 3RR or AIV warning to the editor with action taken if they persist. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit on Terrestrial television from Kl; I'm leaving an WP:NOTOR warning on their page and hopefully this is the end of it. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Gablescar

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.

---

Gablescar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This new(?) user talk page contains WP:POLEMIC against other users probably he thinks that Wikipedia its some kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD.--Shrike (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Polemic removed, user final-warned. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Its interesting to note that some of the users last edits he mentions are before Gablescar first edit so its not clear how he knows about them.--Shrike (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: Maybe he just knows them? :)--Biografer (talk) 00:28, 12 October 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.

Wauconda rangeblock needed

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Somebody using IPs that geolocate to Wauconda, Illinois, has been maliciously changing dates and text for the last two months. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2602:304:CE74:D60:0:0:0:0/64? All 36 edits from this range have been vandalism.

Typical disruption in music articles:

• Changing dates to be wrong
• Changing artist names and song names to be wrong [287][288][289]

Thanks in advance... Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

One month is very good. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally go lower, but the childish disruption goes back to August, so one month is solidly preventative. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Rude edit messages by user with history of blocks (User:Moonsdebut8)

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.

---

Tha relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=804759197&oldid=804715677

Message: "love it when dumb hoes cant read.. u will notice that I was gonna add sources, not you. it may not be my article but i still hold the power so u will respect it when u bring yo bum ass in or you will get reverted everytime.. learn it.. tata"

Talk page: User talk:Moonsdebut8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

They have been blocked indefinitely by Ponyo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a sock of MrWriter245 (talk · contribs). I don't remember MrWriter245 being so abusive in edit summaries before now, but the edits are a clear giveaway. Just ping me next time someone starts editing Teairra Marí disruptively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

My guess would be that it was an attempt to sound like the "sassy black woman" stereotype to create an entirely different tone from before, and perhaps to fall back on as a race-based defence in a dispute over Teairra Mari, who is an African-American woman. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:38, 11 October 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.

Disruptive and tenditious editing by User:Glrx

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.

---

Article: Marcian Hoff

1. Mandruss, article: Removed a comma per WP:JR.[290]

2. Glrx, article: Reverted, "comma preferred here".[291]

3. Mandruss, talk: Opened an article talk discussion. Presented the case fully, in case Glrx was not aware of the history of the comma-before-Jr issue.[292]

4. Mandruss, article: Reverted, "there is no WP:JR case for this comma, see talk page".[293]

5. Glrx, article: Reverted, "refs use the comma".[294]

6. Mandruss, talk: "Please show me in WP:JR where it says that the only sources that matter are those used in refs."[295]

7. Glrx, talk: Falsely claims that I "acknowledged" that I am "a long-term MOS warrior on an inflexible campaign." Continues with argument that bears no connection with the guideline or the underlying community consensus. "You are also not waiting for others to comment here."[296]

8. Mandruss, talk: Lengthy rebuttal. "I will wait for other input, but I figured there wouldn't be any at such a low-vis article."[297]

[10 days pass. During this time I decided that, although Glrx had no case and was being tenditious about it, I would take the issue to WP:DRN if necessary, instead of this page. I spent about an hour putting together that post on my computer.]

9. Mandruss, talk: (with ping) "I think 10 days is long enough to wait for more participation. Regardless, after reflection I doubt I would defer to a local consensus in this case anyway, per WP:CONLEVEL. Are you still adamantly opposed to this edit?"[298]

[4 days pass, during which time Glrx is seen performing 19 edits to other pages, in some 4 editing sessions.]

10. Mandruss, talk: "Given their editing activity since my above ping, I can only assume that Glrx has withdrawn from this discussion. That ends the BRD process and I'm reinstating my edit."[299]

11. Mandruss, article: Revert, "remove comma again per WP:JR - the challenger has dropped out - see talk for details"[300]

12. Glrx, article: Revert, "no consensus on talk page. IEEE sources use comma"[301]

Can't be bothered to answer a simple inquiry in talk, but has the time to revert once again, again with no connection to the guideline or the underlying community consensus. At this point I abandoned the intent to go to DRN, as the DE/TE couldn't be any clearer.

The disputed edit is no different from the literally thousands of comma-removing edits and article moves that have come before it during the past ~18 months, by far more editors than me, including many technical moves performed by admins, and I made this abundantly clear to Glrx. This is an issue that has long been settled, I thought everybody had moved on, but it appears there is still at least one Japanese holdout hiding out in a cave in the Philippines, refusing to accept that the war is over.

Requesting a short block or TBAN from the article so I can get this done. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As a compromise, the community decided that the comma can be used in cases...(2) all reliable sources include the comma. That's all, not most.

I see no mention of this nor the word "all" in either WP:JR/SR or MOS:JR. --Calton | Talk 23:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It says "clearly and consistently." Consistently implies all. More importantly, that interpretation of the guideline has been consistently upheld in move discussions. To my knowledge not a single article about an actual person has cleared the bar, according to those consensuses. The "case law" is compelling. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Consistently implies all. Nope, it does no such thing. So no, it doesn't say what you claim, and using an invented standard not stated as the basis for a block is even less useful. Try persuasion instead of rules-lawyering over self-invented rules. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Try reading and considering the whole comment, including the part beginning with "More importantly", instead of responding only to the easiest target. It's called fair and honest debating. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• There should be a special noticeboard for MOS warriors to report content builders. Then everyone else could get on with life without fighting over a comma. Suppose the OP is right—is that the most pressing issue currently facing Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's really annoying when you can't reach on agreement on comma placement, and the best thing is to work on different articles for a while instead of continuing to argue over what is basically a style preference that is unlikely to attract community involvement. (Sorry, I know it feels really important now, but out of sight is out of mind and it will pass.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will not be cluttering this thread with responses to comments like the above. Either people respect consensus and process, regardless of the magnitude of the disputed edit, or they don't. I'm unlikely to change these people's mind-sets. If more of them happen to show up here than the other ilk, I have wasted my time here and so be it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that generally non-responsiveness on talk is a fair reason to restore an edit, but I don't think AN/I is the right forum for this type of problem. If this is really important to you, maybe wait a while longer then 4 days and don't continue the dispute by calling the editor out in the edit summary. I think they will move on eventually, right? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Failure to respect clear consensus is disruptive editing. This is the venue for disruptive editing. I have no idea whether they will move on eventually. Clearly they have the article watchlisted, and clearly they care a lot about that comma (or they care a lot about making political statements about "MOS warriors", and there is ample evidence of that in their own comments), so my guess would be that they are not going to just move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Failure to respect clear consensus is disruptive editing No, I'd say that imposing zero-tolerance policies on a self-interpretation of a guideline and then running to the admins when you're stymied counts as an even bigger disruption. Have you considered an actual discussion of the edit? --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, asking admins to intervene on your side in a content dispute -- and that's what this is -- so you can get your way is not the purpose of this board. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to say this. As I have clearly stated multiple times, here and in article talk, this is not a self-interpretation but a clearly demonstrated community interpretation. I have supported that assertion twelve ways to Sunday, and I don't see how that point could be made any clearer. Calling this a "self-interpretation" is therefore a deliberate distortion of the facts. But by all means, continue deliberately distorting facts, this is ANI after all. I am doing nothing here but trying to help implement a community consensus, and I don't expect to be denigrated by people who disagree with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• (e/c) I disagree with Mandruss' above characterization of the dispute. The talk page and interaction above show that Mandruss wants to ignore the second clause in MOS:JR (a guideline), a clause that he does not like. I checked several references used in the Marcian Hoff article, and when I went to those sources, those that used Jr. used a comma. (I also did a sanity check of the guideline by looking at Guy Steele Jr.'s Common Lisp book; Steele does not use a comma.) My take was clause 2 applied and reverted under BRD. Mandruss believes that if he can find a single source without a comma, then he wins and can delete the comma. That is not the guideline, and such a rigid belief is absurd. I pointed out that his recycled Atari press release (WP:NEWSORG) and end note (passing note) were not strong sources; the guideline requires "reliable sources". Hoff is a world-famous electronics engineer, and the IEEE spells his name with a comma. The IEEE was spelling his name with a comma in 2005.[302] Hoff did his PhD at Stanford University; the library record is here. Stanford Library uses a comma. The record also has an image of the cover, which has a comma. By the way, that 2005 IEEE article was by Bernard Widrow, Hoff's thesis advisor; Widrow should know how to spell Hoff's name. Glrx (talk) 14:43, 12 October 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.

• Dots/periods/stops in U.S. and commas before Jr. – the gifts that keep on giving. EEng 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with a troll user that could be using my email address

RESOLVED:

Blocked by K6ka. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

This user Bucktony is apparently trying to use my email address for their account, though they don't know the password for my email address, so they cannot confirm their account creation. But I wanted to leave a message here, just to confirm that the user is not me. I only have one account on Wikipedia which is C.Syde65. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, looks like that account has been blocked, and I've figured out how to cancel the email confirmation, so hopefully that means they can't try to use my email address using that account. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:59, 13 October 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.

BigBrownOcelot

• BigBrownOcelot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly reinserts without consensus what appears to be promotion of a non-notable Biblical translation (which has no article), without discussing per BRD/CONSENSUS. A few diffs: (same article: [303], [304], [305], [306]), (another article: [307], [308], [309]), (other articles: [310], [311]). My explanation on the editors's talk page: [312]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding a last diff which contained an Amazon URL: [313] and for convenience insource links to existing unreverted instances: insource:"amazon.com/The-Queen-James-Bible", insource:"Queen James Bible". —PaleoNeonate – 02:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that the problem here is that BigBrownOcelot is making controversial edits and not engaging with other editors. S/he has made no edits to talk pages in the last year and doesn't tend to use edit summaries so I can understand the frustration. I am going to block BigBrownOcelot -- not punitively, but simply to get their attention and ask them to start cooperating with other users. I will lift the block immediately upon their agreement to start collaborating and seeking consensus. We can see where it goes from there.

Thanks PaleoNeonate for the report and for your patience in dealing with a frustrating situation. A Train^talk 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, let's indeed hope that this will begin a dialogue. —PaleoNeonate – 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: I blocked the user in question, got their attention, unblocked them, and they have been communicative and not editing disruptively since then. I think this one is done and dusted, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved admin to review and archive. A Train^talk 16:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Webbling, Eric Ebron, and 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.

---

I first encountered User:Webbling during a routine anti-vandalism patrol. I came across this edit, which I reverted for NPOV violations. When Webbling reverted my reversion [314], I again restored the article to it's previous state. At this point, there was a 50 minute break in editing to Eric Ebron, during which Webbling and I discussed the issue on my talk page. This was ended with this edit, which I again reverted. Since I noticed that there were other revisions on the article that the user was not warned for, I issued a level 4 warning.

I then received a personal attack from Webbling on my talk page[315], on theirs [316], and in an edit summary [317]. I could use some assistance. Hamtechperson 07:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

When I issued the required ANI notice on User Talk: Webbling, I found another personal attack having been left for another user. [318] Hamtechperson 07:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:NOTTHERE, not everybody manages to get into serious troubles after not even having made 20 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"In bird culture this is considered a dick move" -Bird Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbling (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Since they continued, I blocked them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

... and since the block was followed by use of talk page to post yet more infantile attacks, I have removed talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:59, 9 October 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.

Yet another per-purpose account attempting to impose content on List of most visited art museums (3rr, etc.)

Perhaps related to an earlier incident, a seemingly per-purpose contributor is trying to impose (non-article) content on the List of most visited art museums article. [319] TP ✎ ✓ 22:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: I am not sure if it's related to the previous incident (I think this might be a editor contributing in good faith, but with strong Taiwanese POV), although there are too much similarities indeed. I've temporarily protected the page and left a note on the editor's talk page. Alex Shih^Talk 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit hard to say for sure, isn't it? It might be part of a recent 'one-upmanship' POV trend I've seen through asian articles, which in itself is odd (and rather pointless). TP ✎ ✓ 09:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nate Speed sock

Can an available admin please consider blocking IP 39.40.70.28? This is a sockpuppet of banned user Nate Speed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed for background. The user is insistently leaving some very hateful messages at Talk:Paramount Pictures (see [320]); the style of of his message, the topic, the threat to create yet a new account to keep editing pages that have been semi-protected, and the use of the ridiculous "D:<" emoji strongly implies this is a duck. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

IP jumped to Special:Contributions/2001:8003:407c:ba00:de0:bcb6:8f7a:120d. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Unable to lift autoblocks

Resolved

 – Autoblock lifted and bug exterminated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Eruditescholar (talk · contribs) is asking that an autoblock be lifted. In this particular case, it appears appropriate to lift the autoblock. Only... I can't. Look, it's possible I haven't had enough coffee this morning and am doing something stupid. But I've been lifting autoblocks for literally years here. What changed? --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I also tried lifting the autoblock without success, and the error is that the autoblock number isn't a valid username or IP address. This sounds like a bug related to the recent conversion of the block and unblock interfaces to OOUI. I suggest moving this question to WP:VPT. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the autoblock number? Does it appear on Special:AutoblockList? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The autoblock number is 7892601 and yeap, it appears on that page. I'll go notify VPT. --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Would WP:IPBE be a stop-gap measure until we can get the bug fixed? --Jayron32 13:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the block on the account causing the autoblock (per EdJohnston's suggestion), which cleared this autoblock, but there was a recent change to the software that causes it to reject autoblock numbers. A bug report has been filed and a fix is on the way. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal -- two parts working together

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.

---

Somebody using IPs from Lodi, California, has been changing dates to be wrong, along with creating hoaxes and other wrong statements. This person is interested in articles about music, criminals, storms, films and childrens television. See Special:Contributions/2601:202:202:BE0C:0:0:0:0/43 for the IP6 activity, and Special:Contributions/67.187.128.165 for the recent IP4 activity. Older edits have come from Special:Contributions/162.72.184.150, Special:Contributions/50.173.228.121, Special:Contributions/73.235.237.179 and probably more. The IP6 and IP4 addresses often work together on the same topics.

An example of fiction/hoaxing may be seen at Hurricane Isaac (2012) where the vandal first changed to a wrong date[321] then created an extended tail end of the storm (which had actually split into two and petered out.) The vandal fabricated a track going north to Canada[322] and then all the way across the Atlantic to the Azores.[323] None of this is referenced.

An example of edit warring may be seen at Hurricane Wilma where a bunch of the IPs have tried to disrupt the article but Cyclonebiskit, Stikkyy, Tornado chaser and MarioProtIV have reverted the damage.

Date changing vandalism.[324][325][326]

If we can get a rangeblock on 2601:202:202:BE0C:0:0:0:0/43 and other blocks as appropriate, it will still be a huge task to investigate each of the hundreds of edits from this vandal, to revert the bad stuff. Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to block the /43 when the /64 will do; he's been on this /64 since July. 2601:202:202:BE0c::/64 blocked one month for vandalism. Widr already blocked the IPv4 address that isn't stale. Katie^talk 15:22, 13 October 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.

A vandal posts a link to a pirated movie

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 revdel this edit made by this vandal? They changed an external link to a site in which the subject of the article is pirated. This is a massive copyright violation, so you can see why I came here. DarkKnight2149 19:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

All taken care of for you! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 13 October 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.

Porn vandalism in widely used template

Template:Redirect-multi was vandalized with porn. I reverted, but I'm still seeing the porn at University of California, Los Angeles (and likely lots of other places). How does one flush the cache? And shouldn't such templates be semi-protected? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the template has been protected now. As to purging the cache, add &action=purge to the URL of any affected page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, though this is a pretty uncommon problem these days, there ought to be some admin-only tool that lists unprotected templates with more than a certain threshold number of transclusions so those templates can be considered for protection in the future. This one has over 300. That and I'm sure there's something that can be done with edit filters (i.e., adding images to templates set to display at a large size, adding hardcoded HTML/CSS to templates, etc.). I'm a bit surprised we still have this problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another template with 1,300+ transclusion was also recently vandalised with porn. Is this a very common problem? HaEr48 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, {{re}} was exploited earlier as well. This is more common with frequently used template redirects. Either edit filter or a tool that shows top list of highly visible pages, something needs to be done. Alex Shih^Talk 07:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It used to be a lot more common, especially before template protection. The only thing to do was to full protect templates, but then people who worked on templates (who often weren't admins) would have to jump through hoops to commit changes... so protection wasn't so popular on templates. Whatever we do, it's important to note that this sort of image vandalism is not the only thing people have done to mess up templates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some kind of search or report generation tool for finding those templates. I've forgotten the specifics but someone here or at VPT can probably remember where it is. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages, but it hasn't been updated for a little while, and wouldn't have listed those templates anyway because they don't have enough transclusions for that page. Graham87 09:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If we exclude already semi-protected templates, maybe the targeted templates above would appear somewhere on top. HaEr48 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There are now zero unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that were previously unprotected, and have over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can’t see the rev-del’d vandalism linked above, but it sounds a lot like an instance I reverted last night at the redirect {{Snf}}. It has fewer than a hundred transclusions IIRC, so apparently not only the most heavily used templates are being targeted. Anyway, perhaps an admin would like to have a peek at the history and see if it’s as worthy of being hidden as the others evidently were.—Odysseus1479 23:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to flush the caches of all the pages that transclude a template that has been vandalized and fixed? And a good way to learn about such things? Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I was/am offline for few days. I saw the vandalism and came here to report it. But it is already taken care of by MusikAnimal. @Dicklyon: In monskin there is an asterisk at the top row, it purges the cache of that page without confirmation. I am not sure about the default theme, but I think it is in the "more" dropdown menu. All we need to do is find recently edited templates. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor not engaging at talk pages

I have recently come into conflict with Planonasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the article Etmopterus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and both myself and user Elmidae have been unsuccessful at beginning a conversation at the article's talk page via edit summaries and pinging at the talk page. I have not posted on this user's talk page because it seems that their only edits to talk pages are moves (see here), and they have not ever responded to anyone or participated in a discussion even on their own talk page. Planonasus brings much knowledge about a niche area to the project, but is apparently unable to engage the community and has proven themselves quite difficult to work with.

To begin this particular conflict, I reverted and then undid that reversion of their original edit to Etmopterus because I thought that they had removed Elmidae's recently added content. I realized after my reversion that they had not, but did remove a reference, an entry in a list, and the See also section without any explanation. I then made some copyedits, added back the list entry and the removed reference, and made more content changes. Planonasus reverted all of these edits without using an edit summary and, after prompting from Elmidae, has reverted all of these changes three more times while (I assume?) only contesting the list item. (See "Etmopterus baxteri is a junior synonym of E. granulosus." in edit summary but no comment on the lead copyedit, etc.) I can only wonder if they are simply unaware these other changes are being made (in addition to the species in the list) by their persistent reverting.

I cannot engage in a content dispute via edit summaries, so I am bringing this here as the user is either unaware that talk pages exist, despite the notification system and possible emails, or is unwilling to edit them. I would also like to point out that Planonasus' edit summary usage for recent major edits is 40% despite being told about this in March 2016 (and again later that month, and also in March 2017); they have continued to not follow WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA after being made aware of it (1, one year later, and 2, two years later); were first blocked for disruptive editing, and again for 3 months after continuing to make cut and paste moves (see block log); and have continued to rely on primary sources for changes to taxa despite being told about secondary and tertiary sources last year. – Rhinopias (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The user is also habitually removing citation templates and references (amidst useful edits), despite being alerted to that being nonconstructive, perhaps most recently in February 2016. The practice continues, for example here for Atractoscion and for Schistura. The user is not necessarily engaging in edit wars but continues with similar nonconstructive edits elsewhere. Micromesistius (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the malfunction here is pretty apparent. Planonasus has never edited a user talk page, and never made a comment on an article talk page. I completely understand the frustration you feel in dealing with him/her. Part of being WP:HERE is editing collaboratively—if you can't play nice with others, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. As you note above, the user has been blocked again and again for years with editors begging Planonasus to interact with them, to no avail.

What I am going to do is block Planonasus, just to get their attention. I will lift the block immediately as soon as they reply to my talk page message, and hopefully I will extract a pledge to start cooperating with other editors. A Train^talk 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Possibly my only comment because I'm travelling and this tablet is sapping my will to live... Planonasus does indeed seem to have substantial subject knowledge but their uncooperative behaviour is a problem. The noted situation at Etmopterus illustrates the complete unwillingness to use article talk pages, nothing on their own talk page ever gets answered, acknowledged or sorted out, and there seems to be a general lack of understanding of other's concerns about sourcing and sweeping unexplained deletions/moves. They don't engage in extended edit wars, but neither do they ever help to resolve a situation. Probably not actually sanction-worthy, so I'm not sure what can be done at this point, but a nuisance and likely to blow up at some point. I'd certainly like to see some input from them here. - I see an attention-getter block is in the offing, thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, Planonasus has been blocked and I have explained on their talk page that the restriction will be lifted as soon as they agree to start editing collaboratively. Let's see how we get on. A Train^talk 19:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think blocking indefintiely was correct, especially given prior blocks (one from me) for similar disruptive editing. I suppose that if Planonasus agrees to start editing collaboratively it is fine to unblock, but despite their knowledge I don't think we should wait long before reblocking if disruptive behavior resumes. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to their collaboration if they attempt to do so. – Rhinopias (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that Planonasus does seem to have stopped removing parentheses from taxonomic authorities, which was what led to their being blocked in 2014. There is some evidence that they can change their behavior. However, while they do seem to be knowledgeable about shark taxonomy, it's concerning that they weren't getting parentheses right in the first place. Taxonomy is a niche field with many arcane rules, but parentheses usage is pretty basic. Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I present Planonasus's first talk page edit ever. The user has been duly unblocked. Please keep me and ANI posted on how they get on from here. A Train^talk 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Tag team vandals?

Copied and pasted from WP:AIV:

• J4400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued vandalism despite multiple warnings; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The vandal linked here tag-teams with other accounts:

98.22.149.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rj24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

72.2.158.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've run across this user before, but stopped trying because beyond a few users who have caught on, there isn't much will or effort to stop it. The pattern is this: The user tag-teams various articles with registered users and IP addresses, mostly 98.xxx whatever, and IPv6 ones starting with 2602/6. Look through the articles the above accounts have edited and you will see the same pattern. The sockmaster relies on nobody being able to verify the info they add to articles, but they still add legitimate edits amongst their vandalism to complicate matters for anyone who catches on. Anyone who wants to waste time trying to combat this vandal, my suggestion is to revert any and all of their edits. Eik Corell (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd just copy and paste the whole report to a new thread at ANI. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

But J4400 is a vandal. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate to speak for Ad Orientem, but I believe what his terse response was telling you is that complex behavioral issues such as sockpuppetry and coordinated attacks by multiple people may not be entirely appropriate for WP:AIV, which is designed for more quick, no-investigation-necessary vandalism issues. As soon as it requires someone to look deeper into a problem to investigate more complex issues, AIV really isn't the best place. ANI or another board is more appropriate. That's why I think he recommended this come here. --Jayron32 22:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Very strange bug

I don't know if this is the right place to raise this. I seem to have been affected by a very strange bug; when I try to edit any page, a load of extraneous text is automatically added to the end of the page or section I am editing. Reverting my edit does not remove this; I have to specifically restore the previous edit. For an example of what is happening, see this history page. I last made a good edit at 11.41 today, by 13.09 this had appeared. Is this specific to my account, or is there a more general problem? And if it is specific to me, how can I resolve it?

I apologise if this edit also throws up a ton of nonsense! RolandR (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this only happen on Wikipedia? Looks like you've got some malware on your machine that's inserting that into text fields or the like. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if you're including the blacklist in your commons.js. More specifically, I suspect "importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); //Linkback: User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js Added by Script installer" may be the culprit. In that case, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that last comment. And I have not edited my js page today, so some other factor must be involved here. RolandR (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that script, but it clearly has not resolved the problem. The bug did not appear on my js page. Nor does it seem to appear on other sites. And I'm sorry, I am unable to delete all of this rubbish. As it stands, I am currently unable to edit Wikipedia, and this is caused ny something that happened - without any action by me - between 11.41 and 13.09 BST today. RolandR (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nah... It's probably not that script. Somehow your browser imports some javascript and i'm looking for it;s source. Since the script is affecting other people on other platforms, it's probably not a Wikipedia problem. You may have some malware on board, as suggested earlier. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of minutes in DuckDuckGo suggests the script is associated with a Chrome extension called Poper Blocker. If you've got that installed, reinstall it (or switch to uBlock Origin). MER-C 13:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Malware/adware does seem plausible given the first few links on the page (specifically the adult ones usually associated with such spyware). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've uninstalled Poper Blocker, and that seems to have resolved the problem. Now to check what happens when I reinstall... RolandR (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Reinstalled, and the problem does not recur. Presumably some bug or malware got in to the Poper Blocker script. Ayt least thst's resolved now, thanks for your help. Now to get back to my attempted edits on Marsha de Cordova. RolandR (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

II spoke too soon. The bug did not affect this page, but as soon as I tried to edit elsewhere it reappeared. I've now rtemoved Poper Blocker, and can edit properly. But I can't find anything online about this bug; where did you find details, MER-C? RolandR (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I searched for "var pb_blacklist = [\"adrunnr\"", and saw that the code was associated with that particular extension. MER-C 03:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, just to follow on with this. I've been working with Markdill about the exact same issue. Wonder if maybe we want to set a blacklist? I'm not sure how prevalent this issue is though. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious reverts and discredit of relevant sources in articles which highlight critics against the PRC (China)

Several articles in English and German Wikipedia are being reverted or censored when facts and critics about the PRC (China) are published. Also, reliable sources are discredited by several users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Civil_Aviation_Organization&diff=803471900&oldid=803471752 (This must be restored, article should be semi locked)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=50_Cent_Party&diff=804828353&oldid=804663096 (Should be semi-locked, article extreme sensitive for manipulation)

Personal attacks and threads on my personal talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peterpens

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Auff%C3%A4lliges_L%C3%B6sch-_bzw._Kommentarverhalten_bei_kritischen_Artikeln_%C3%BCber_die_Volksrepublik_China

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterpens (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• The OP has been blocked indefinitely by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A rangeblock for HarveyCarter

The IP 2A00:23C4:6386:400:212D:7785:6CC:63D1 was recently blocked because it was being used by User:HarveyCarter to evade his ban/block. However, that whole /64 group needs to be rangeblocked, as every single edit from that range has been HarveyCarter evading his ban. Also, IP 86.144.84.48 has been used recently by HarveyCarter. Thank you for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:6386:400:0:0:0:0/64
• 86.144.84.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I've blocked the 2A00:23C4:6386:400:0:0:0:0/64 range for a week. Not sure about the IPv4, which is dynamic anyway. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC).

I did a rather wide range block. It's not a CU block, and I'm alright with people narrowing it. From the behavioral evidence, it's all Harvey, though. Note: didn't see Bishonen's post or block before I did this. There shouldn't be any collateral damage from this, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site

Input at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version.3F would be appreciated, please, as @Fram and I seem to be talking past each other. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would support the request. I found recently impossible to discuss these issues with Fram, since I did not get an impression they listen to what I say, but if there is a user who could communicate with them it would be very useful to provide input and move the discussion forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I listen. I don't blindly accept. Don't confuse the two. Anyway, I started an RfC, so obviously more input is welcome. It would be rather stupid to start an RfC if I didn't want more input. Another discussion where Mike Peel and Ymblanter (and a few others) happen to disagree with me was posted by me to WP:AN, WP:VPPR, WP:CENT and WP:BON. Many editors in that discussion have no problem communicating with me and vice versa, and that discussion is nicely moving forward, though perhaps not in the direction Ymblanter prefers. The RfC here is whether it is best to continue with the newish Wikidata-driven version of the template for Unesco World Heritage sites, or revert to the earlier local version (which I have now revived and improved in a new template to help the discussion forward). I.e. whether using Wikidata outweighs the problems noted on the template talk page (in the RfC, and in the discussions before). A comparison between the old and new template can be made at e.g. the old and new version of Park Güell. The new template is still being developed (and the /doc is not up to date yet), but as far as I know everything the Wikidata version did, plus some new things, are easily possible already. Fram (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to keep this as a neutral request. I won't post my point of view here, it's on the template talk page. *Please* can someone other than me and Fram provide input there? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Premature closure

The discussion has been prematurely closed by @Francis Schonken: as WP:SNOW. The discussion was still ongoing, and was only recently started, and it is not clear that there is SNOW consensus here. Francis is also not an uninvolved/neutral editor in this case (see his recent contributions to Wikidata discussions). Please can someone review this closure, and ideally reverse it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion below: wrong forum, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: WP:AN is the proper forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved that discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of NAC of RFC. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: the RfC has been reopened. For clarity: I have no problem with that. I tried to close before an obvious elephant would enter the room. Fram was careful to keep that elephant out of the room two days before I implemented my SNOW close. After reopening the RfC, the elephant immediately entered the room (yeah, I had seen that coming). The so-called elephant is a behavioural issue, which imho should better be treated outside a content-related RfC. The behavioural issue is Mike Peel mass-deleting Wikipedia-defined parameter content from Wikipedia's mainspace with the obvious aim of creating a fait accompli, thus having made a successful outcome of the RfC considerably more complicated to implement (hundreds of pages would need a revert to make the former version of the template display useful content). There was no consensus whatsoever for these content deletion proceedings. Now that this behavioural "elephant" is part of the RfC, I think the RfC should be suspended or closed (its outcome is obvious), so that the behavioural component can be given a proper treatment (for instance here: I have no prejudice on how the community wants that to turn out). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The aim here was not to have a fait accompli. I was not deleting content, I was changing it so that the Wikidata values were being used instead, and cleaning up the information at the same time. But we should talk about this on the talk page of the template, not here, and I am working on a draft RfC to see what the consensus is here for the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Update – The RfC currently still shows a supermajority to accept the OP proposal (2 clear opponents, 6 clear supporters). But something changed: the Wikidata version should be avoided while clogging the watchlist feature in WikiMedia projects other than Wikidata. That clogging led to disabling the possibility to make Wikidata changes show up in en.Wikipedia watchlists (see Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft#Systemic issue that has serious implications for increased use of Wikidata), and that former possibility was exactly key to the opponents' reasoning. To sum up: one of the key assumptions of the outnumbered opponents has become moot, and until a complex technical issue is resolved WikiMedia project outside Wikidata should make less calls to Wikidata from infoboxes (while extensive calls from infoboxes seem to have been the root cause of the technical problems). I propose, unless someone objects, to re-close the RfC on "accept" of the OP proposal, with the provision that a Wikidata version of the template may only again become the single standard for this infobox after technical issues are resolved, and a future RfC shows a broad acceptance of that idea. Without prejudice against experimenting with the separate Wikidata version of the template on a handful-ish of mainspace implementations until such future RfC decides on its fate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Wikidata rears its ugly head once again. EEng 12:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Violation of unblock civility restriction

User:Darkness Shines explicitly agreed to remain civil with other users as a condition of their account block being lifted in May 2017 (archive). This restriction was to last until 29 November, or 6 months (diff). However, recently the user has persistently made abusive, combative, and/or snide remarks on Talk:Patriot Prayer:

• 18:03, 28 September 2017 ("just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse")
• 01:39, 30 September 2017 ("as usual you refuse to fucking listen")
• 13:27, 1 October 2017 ("what the fuck are you on?")
• 13:40, 1 October 2017 ("O look, another geographically challenged person")
• 15:33, 6 October 2017 (accusation of trolling)
• 15:49, 6 October 2017 ("you'll be getting abusive language soon enough if you keep being a dick")
• 15:51, 6 October 2017 (changed "being a dick" to "pissing me off")

An anonymous user requested that Darkness Shines specifically strike that last comment (diff), which Darkness Shines has not done. I haven't included all the instances of gratuitous profanity by this user at Talk:Patriot Prayer either. I have made some edits to that article, and would like to contribute further, but Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility and stubbornness that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible.

User:K.e.coffman raised the issue of harassment at the user's talk page (diff), and User:Cyberpower678 also suggested they take a break from editing that page, apparently due to edit warring, not incivility (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC))

I have not been uncivil to anyone, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose that we study and debate each occurrence in exhaustive detail to determine whether any admin action is justified. DarknessShines may have been in the right as to content, or they may have been provoked; in either case, the civility violations are forgiven. Also we need to discuss whether they are actually civility violations in the first place, since one man's incivility is another man's plain talk. We need to discuss the thickness of editor skins and whether mere words really do any harm. We need to look into the OP's entire editing history to decide whether they are acting in good faith, and possibly discuss a boomerang sanction. If some editors feel that other editors have misbehaved in this thread, we will need to discuss that, too. I estimate that all this will require at least 10 days of active debate, per due process. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Only 10 days? my, my aren't we optimistic? If i remember correctly, ArbCom was involved and that usually adds another week at least. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility and stubbornness that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible." I hate proving people wrong but.... wrong Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to learn what your threshold of "incivility" would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Last two comments on User:Sangdeboeuf's talkpage: (1) A warning to self-revert after 4 reverts on said article. (2) A notice that they'd been reported to WP:AN3. If anyone's going to bring an ANI report here against Darkness Shines, it should be the editor that he has allegedly been incivil to (who is a SPA on that article and who has also been reported a number of times for edit-warring), not a fellow traveller. In fact, this should just be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • it should be the editor that he has allegedly been incivil to - Strongly disagree. If a concept of incivility actually exists at Wikipedia, it's an offense against many who read it, not only the target. Further, the target's motive in coming to ANI generally has more to do with emotion and personal interest (i.e. revenge) than community interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Incivility is never an offense against one editor. It is always and everywhere an offense against the entire community because of the damage it does to the environment we all must work in. Further I would take issue with an earlier comment suggesting that being right in a content dispute somehow excuses incivility. It does not. However gross provocation can be a mitigating factor. All of which said I have not yet looked into the particulars of this case and am making no judgements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It does not. If you're referring to my small comment, (1) I hope it was obvious that it was satirical in nature, and (2) perhaps you meant "it should not", and I would agree. In practice, it most certainly does. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ack. Clearly I need to have my satire detector recalibrated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Come over to my talk page Bugs, I have a thick skin so try your best. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't say stuff like you're saying to that one user, so by my standards, you're over the line. I would just like to know where you consider the line to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess I had a rougher upbringing than yourself, read this when I'm reverted i expect the one who reverted to explain why, not to copypaste "This must be a misunderstand as there is no consensus on such a MAJOR change, please submit this change first to the TALK page to gain consensus before making such a major alteration to a page under neutrality dispute, thank you." Ten Fecking times without ever explaining why the work was reverted, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't believe in the concept of incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't be daft Bugs, I'm perfectly civil as can be seen in myndealings with an UP in the section I linked. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I want to know if there is any specific statement you can think of which you would consider uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: you specifically agreed to "remain civil when communicating with other users, and report them or seek WP:3O or WP:DR as needed". Instead of doing that, you have simply made a series of personal insults toward the user who reverted you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, I call a spade a spade, not a shovel. I have not made a series of insults, troll is the only one. I have sought dispute resolution I have reported him, he broke 3RR on my fucking talk page for Christ's sake, since I created the article he created an account and does nothing but revert me, he is a SPA, and it is my opinion that he is trolling me. All anyone need do is look on the talk page of the article Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've lived next to crack houses, so I'm not exactly the most sheltered person alive. I will say, though, that sometimes it's best to avoid labeling spades, shovels, and other gardening implements. There's a time and a place to spade-calling, and not every spade needs to be explicitly labeled as such. If you find the urge rising to start labeling spades, maybe you should find something to do that doesn't involve spades. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Courcelles, Callanecc, what do you two make of this? Your names appear in DS's block log. I'm of two minds. First of all, "fuck off" isn't really blockable, as was said above, in a different section, by a very wise and handsome administrator, but we got a lot of comments here and some of the f-words are used adjectivally, if you dig where I'm coming from. On the other hand, C.W Gilmore's commentary is somewhat exasperating and I do believe they violated an unblock condition; plus, they are pretty much an SPA. On the third hand, I can't help but think that DS is less than neutral here and some of the edits (or proposed edits) come pretty close to whitewashing. On the fourth hand, I don't know and I wonder if topic-banning both editors from this page would help. Perhaps you all have wisdom to spare. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• That was sort of my point, Drmies. When you're faced with the ridiculous SPA sealion-ing activities of CW Gilmore, it's not unsurprising that anyone would resort to language that may be regarded as incivil. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's called the "Look what you made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's really not BB. Have a look at CW Gilmore's "contributions" to that talk page and tell me they wouldn't enrage anyone that's actually trying to improve it. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Getting irritated is understandable. Resorting to low-life language is a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I assume you meant not surprising. Tell you what, the first time I resort to language like that for any reason - nay, the first time that happens to me or any one of the many longtime editors who have earned my respect - I'll buy that reasoning. Until then I'll continue to see it as an excuse and editors who defend it as enablers of the excuse. I think that's a fair and reasonable approach. If Wikipedia provides no other way to deal with such problems (and I don't believe that's true), that's on Wikipedia and that's where the attention is needed, not in an endless succession of threads like this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not excusing the language at all (and yes I meant "surprising"), but all I see is a long-term editor being faced by a SPA engaging in ridiculous commentary on the talk page and being enraged by it. In these situations, the easiest way to sort the problem out is to get rid of the SPA account, not the person that's actually trying to improve the article. That's just common sense. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wha? How does the language in question here get rid of the SPA account? It looks to me like you're excusing the language with your "tell me they wouldn't enrage anyone" and "not surprising" comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I said in my previous comment, I'm not excusing it, but it isn't surprising given the disruption the SPA account is causing. That's not too difficult a concept, surely? And the easiest way to "fix" the problem is to remove the SPA from the proceedings. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's "surprising" to me and many others. I don't know what else to say. The issue will be decided by a democratic vote of an almost infinitesimal fraction of the editing population, those who are nuts enough to visit this page and couldn't possibly be said to be representative of the whole. Been here, done this. See ya's. (For what it's worth, which I know is nothing at all, you have no policy/guideline support for your rationale, aside from the general purpose license to ignore any policy/guideline we disagree with.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  How do you get 1900 edits on one article talk page, and 1245 on another? I suppose that if you can handle talk pages in that way, C. W. Gilmore's article talk page work may not seem so...excessive, but for me, it does. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't disputed that they are an SPA. I'm taking people's word on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• As the person who has unblocked Darkness Shines, I have been quietly monitoring Patriot Prayer. I can tell you for certain that what has been going on there would generate a level of frustration that even I may lose my cool with, if I were in his place. What I observe is Darkness Shines making mostly reasonable edits, and then getting shot down at every turn by Gilmore. Gilmore doesn't seem to get that this has become disruptive, and then makes massive amounts of reverts on that article. I clearly understood that Darkness Shines was beyond frustrated, and as an admin made the call to not block him and instead talk to him. As for Gilmore, the massive number of reverts was a reason to block alone. I made the condition that Gilmore stay away from the article as an unblock condition, though I wish he exercised common sense and left the talk page alone too as Darkness Shines did. At this point C. W. Gilmore needs to be topic banned from the article IMO.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just to agree with Cyberpower above - DS brought to RSN a discussion about some content he wanted to include - which after looking at the article, he appears to have been unduly frustrated by editor/s there. I couldn't see any issue with either the source or the content and the arguments against it were mostly spurious. I can see why it would have wound him up. This is not an excuse for his language, but his editing is very far from whitewashing there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban for User:C. W. Gilmore on Patriot Prayer

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.

---

• Enough is enough, I think. A simple reading of the talk page for the article will see that CWG is prepared to argue anything to a ridiculous amount, including unsourced/poorly sourced material and original research. Effectively CWG has been reverting DS and othe editors with "you need consensus" when the actual edits they are reverting are generally supported by sources, whereas CWGs are not. For an example, see the "Big Government" section at the top of the current talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Oppose the false binary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment He argues what appears to be mainly with another editor, by whom he was reported 3 times at the edit warring board by the other editor, which concluded no violation in two instances (the other resulted in a page protection). It is unclear to me why he should be tbanned, the amount of comments as a reason for tban seems too far fetched. It is also unclear to me what exactly the issue is on that page, other than discussing a source (I only read 3 sections and fast read through this extensive talk page). Re BG section, CWG gave a link to his point. prokaryotes (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading now above comment snippets, which seem that the user went too far with aggressive remarks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've read Talk:Patriot_Prayer#Big_government which Black Kite recommends as a representative sample of C.W. Gilmore's style of argument. Man, even having to read it is uncomfortable. I can't imagine the frustration of trying to "discuss" with CWG. I support the topic ban as proposed, and also a barnstar to Darkness Shines for keeping their temper as well as they did in that section. (I admit to not having read the entire talkpage. I only have one life.) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC).
• Support as a distant second choice to just indef-blocking C. W. Gilmore for persistent disruption. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - but after reading the above material I agree with Courcelles that an indef block for disruption would be appropriate. Also endorse the barnstar for DS. -- Begoon 20:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Object -I have not been the cause of this, but reacted to the insistent POV pushing by Darkness Shines to rewrite the page to become less Pro-Trump and omit as much connection of the organization to white nationalists as possible. These major changes without consensus[327] are what I objected to and have been working hard to gain compliance, which DS has now been forced to do. This is why Darkness continually reports me to the Administrator so I will be blocked and DS will have a free hand to change the page at will. I suggest you speak to @Jorm:, @Somedifferentstuff:, @Tornado chaser: and @K.e.coffman: for their input as they are and will be most effected by my presence or absence. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I must say if I had acted on those edit warring reports at the edit warring noticeboard, the last two cases would have resulted in a block. As a matter of fact, I ended up blocking after the "No Violation" decision was posted there, unaware of the fact that you were reported there. For the latest report, I would have blocked you again. Edit warring on someone's own talk page is unacceptable.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also since the page you've been warring on is under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, I was getting close to imposing a topic ban on you without discussion. Since we are here now, I'll let the thread play out and let the community decide if one is needed or not.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - But I'm inclined to agree with Courcelles that an indef block for disruption is probably a better option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Questions When did it become a banning offense to talk things through thoroughly on the Talk page of an article? Is that not a reasonable way, of doing things? Asking DS to bring major changes to the Talk page. If fact why is DS's status brought up, just I?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think the biggest problem is that the article is WP:UNDUE. It's not a "group", it's just one guy with a Facebook page who appears to be very good at baiting counter-protestors. I feel it should be merged to Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump or Joey Gibson (political activist). Not every protest is notable, and the default solution of creating a WP:UNDUE amount of content for both pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests leads to disputes like this, where the group has more adjectives than it does participants. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about having to list every rally, but it was the only way to prove to DS that the group really was Pro-Trump and usually included white nationalist among their numbers without having my posts deleted by DS and then being reported to Admin. I hope they can be consolidated and merged, but I feared that without those referenced sources, all pro-Trump and white nationalists references would be slowly minimized again as it was before. Though, is will not be my problem to deal with for a while or longer. Good luck.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal -Why don't I just step away from Patriot Prayer (all pages) for a month or two and let everyone else deal with it as they see fit. I'm done commenting on the Talk page or contributing to the article, have a good day.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:01, 11 October 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.

• The above discussion made a lot more sense once I realized it's not about football players kneeling. EEng 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions for this group: If all the problems were with me, then why has Darkness Shines just made another attempt, his 5th 6th at rewriting the lede section without consensus, in fact, against it?[328] Could it be that I was only responding to DS pushing a POV agenda, not the cause of the problem? I will step back and say no more, thank you for your work and consideration.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Self proclaimed possible sock?

New OS system recently acknowledged (few hours ago from now) that he has multiple accounts. But he has only one edit visible in his history. Not sure which are the other accounts, or if they are legitimate alternate accounts. It is not suitable for SPI, so I am bringing it up here. Regards. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an LTA'er, and all cleaned up (for today). Special:WhatLinksHere/User:New OS system. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks zzuuzz. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

On one hand, I knew that socks don't proclaim who they are, but on the other hand was is LTA'er?--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, he apparently logged out, and then questioned me if I was a WP:MEATBOT. Here is a diff and his contributions page indicates that he only made one edit to my talkpage.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Strange, non of those accounts you listed, I welcomed him on.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: There are chances that the IP you mentioned is not the sockmaster. Also, zzuuzz said "and several older accounts". That set of older accounts might contain the ones that you welcomed. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Well, if zzuuzz is right, then maybe he should show them to me. If by any chance I did welcomed a sock, I would like to apologize, but as I said to other admins, its impossible for me to distinguish a sock from a good faith editor, especially when their contributions are rather low.--Biografer (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There are chances that the IP you mentioned is not the sockmaster. Interesting analogy, but then explain why he targeted my talkpage and not went to target others? After that WP:MEATBOT allegation he went silent, so its rather suspicious that an anonym targeted my talkpage (and not in a vandalic way). Like, I encountered IP address accounts numerous of times but none on my talkpage. Article vandalism by IPs? Sure. Reported a couple. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing about IP addresses, and especially IPv6 addresses, is that they frequently change. So someone makes an edit with one IP address one minute, the next minute they'll have been assigned another. And there's a lot of users who mostly edit unregistered but still see what's going on. As for this LTA user, and I am right, they create accounts most days so it's difficult to say where you would have welcomed them. Hidden edit filter management team is one of them, but when you welcome users like Eatbutthole, Kickthenutsack, and Pussypunisher3000 just in the last few days, I can see how there'd be more. And this is one of the reasons nobody likes welcome-bots, btw.[329] I'd personally suggest you stop it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: First, I would like to thank you for mentioning of those users that had inappropriate username (I sometimes view contributions and assume good faith). So, sorry if I did anything wrong. Second, I removed those welcome messages so that nobody would assume that I welcomed vandals. :) I personally reported some in the past, and reverted 2 edits by such as of today (and probably will do more). :)--Biografer (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Turanism article

• Maghasito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A wishful thinking guy named User:Maghasito deleted references and rewrote the Turanism article, just because he simply "does't like" the referenced content and he is a believer of pseudo scientific turanist ideas. The true believer guy also started an edit war. Can you restore the article and protect the page? Thank you!--Filederchest (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• You've made no attempts to strike up a friendly conversation or discuss they matter with ANYONE outside this forum. What do you want anyone else to do here? You're perfectly capable of being friendly and trying to reach a reasonable compromise. If you can't be bothered to work it out, why should anyone else here care? --Jayron32 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try, but as you can see on his talkpage he has never given any answers.--Filederchest (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maghasito has now been notified. I've also alerted User:Maghasito to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Our article on Turanism say this was a nationalistic political movement, and since it relates to Eastern Europe it falls in the domain of the EE case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I copied my message to the WP:ARBEE.--Filederchest (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As you can see on his talkpage, he haven't really answered to anyone. He simply doesn't care about well established scholarly and scientific consensus, and he behaves autonomous. HE spread speudo-linguistics and pseudo history because of his turanist political views. I know that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" but it shouldn't need to mislead readers (like the so-called metapedia with its conspiracy theories)--Filederchest (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Turanism is a speudo science which developed into a racist ideology by time. Read this citation: --Filederchest (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Maghasito's activity:

In Maghasito's vocabulary the "quality of his edits" means putting old Hungarian language references from very obsolete works of old authors, pushing pseudo scientific and politically motivated fairly tales like Turanism. He tries to deny internationally well established scholarly consensuses in history and linguistics. In the reality Hungarian language is not belong to the Turkic language family, Hungarians are not Turkic people etc. There are no "Turanian people" and "Turanian race" and "Turanian languages". The Departments of Linguistics in all universities around the word teach the Hungarian language in Finno-ugric Uralic linguistic departments, but somehow Turanian departments don't exist. Turanists like to solve the "problem" of this wide scholarly consensus by creation of conspiracy theories. Only two ways remain for turanists. 1. The linguist scholars are all stupid. Off course, most people won't believe their tales that the universities and scholars are all stupid globally. Their second option: Turanist concepts is politically oppressed (of course globally), by the (long dead) Habsburg Monarchs, the communists trample them (even after the fall of the Soviet Union, in the era of Freedom of the press and freedom of the speech) or the most popular anti-semitic turanist narratives among Hungarian turan-believers: The Jews and Jewish scholars "conspired" globally against Turanism. He couldn't even search English language references, because of his limited English proficiency he is unable to use the English Google Books. As you can see, he likes to spread well known - thousand times refuted - conspiracy theories, like the Habsburg conspiracy, and non-related topics like the history of Hungarian language as Official language etc. His Hungarian Wikipedia edits are against the historian and linguists scholars of the MTA (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) because according to his opinion, the scholars globally conspired against the Turanism the "eternal truth". During his long activity in the Turanism article, he also deleted many modern English language sources and references of leading English and American universities too. The turanist linguistic theories fully employ the symptoms what you can found in the articles of Pseudoscientific_language_comparison#Traits_and_characteristics and Pseudohistory#Characteristics. He acts like a true believer or wishful thinker. I think Wikipedia articles shouldn't be similar to the Metapedia, the hotbed of pseudo history and baseless conspiracy theories.--Filederchest (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My intuitions were good. A good turanist must fight against Jews and Zionism. Just look his edits around November of 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maghasito --Filederchest (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Page moves to different names

Just wondering if someone could have a look at TomParker680 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s recent edits (related to Tom Parker (darts player), Wayne Pepper, Ryan Meikle (darts player) and Usertalk:William Shakespeare) as there are various confusing page moves that have lost histories and made a bit of a mess, which are beyond my ability to figure out what to do with. Thanks! Melcous (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've sorted all of those out, more importantly I have blocked the editor indef for disruptive editing. Let me know if there's anything still left unfixed. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion request for Claudia Winkleman

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.

---

An IP has made an edit to Claudia Winkleman that may need revision deleting for serious BLP violations. Can an admin handle this? Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppressed it. Normally I'd have just revdel'd it, but I've recently heard that there seems to be a consensus to suppress all libel, even when it's what I would call "silly" libel that anyone with a brain would know isn't true. And @Theinstantmatrix: (gently, because I know you were trying to do the right thing) please don't make revdel or suppression requests at ANI, the most widely watched page here. Email an admin (for revdel), or email the oversight team (Special:EmailUser/Oversight). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for handling it. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:10, 13 October 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.

Straw poll concerning Medeis / μηδείς and WP: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.

---

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς should really be here, IMO, but got started elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this the second "advisory poll" waste-of-time thing that Guy's started recently? Can we stop doing those maybe? Fyddlestix (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The non-binding straw poll is effectively finished[330] and I have already suggested a close.[331] I see no need for more attention there, let alone admin attention. If someone wishes to attack Guy Macon for starting the straw poll, I suppose they'll need to also attack all the established editors who participated in it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You might be talking about the one he instigated to try to get the notorious banned user Betacommand reinstated, which is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, speaking of which--can I get the two-sentence summary of that laundry list, please? Thanks so much! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What list are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Try not to get shirty. You're a-dressing an arbitrator. EEng 03:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I just don't know what list he's talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Too subtle, apparently... laundry list... shirt-y... a-dressing... Get it? EEng 03:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I got your joke. I just didn't know what "laundry list" Drmies was referring to. It took the user just below to explain it, and even then it took a while, because I don't keep lists like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The one where you keep your gripes to bring up in unrelated discussions. I'm pretty sure this is the 2nd or third time you have sniped about Betacommand. It must be getting pretty big by now. Just post it and we can deal with them all at once... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The user Fyddlestix raised the question, so I answered it. If there's a different answer, let me know. Supposing your hypothesis of what Drmies was talking about is correct, I don't have any "lists" as such. If I appear to be on another user's "enemies list", sometimes I'll be aware of it (the Nazi troll's list, for example), but that's about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I'm sorry I started this. Can we all just move on now? Thanks, Bugs, For providing the link. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What administrative action is the poster of this thread, User:Beyond My Ken, suggesting? If it is a topic-ban on User:Guy Macon conducting straw polls on controversial topics, I will Support. Otherwise just close this as not an admin request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You raised a question at the ref desk talk page, about Macon saying we shouldn't be discussing users on that page. His straw poll thing would seem to contradict what he said back in the spring:[332] Macon seems to have forgotten his own "rule". I think BMK is saying that Macon should have brought it here instead of the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with BMK, since non-binding, temperature-taking straw polls do not require admin attention, or even community attention. This is an admin noticeboard. If it had been a request for a ban, an admin noticeboard would have been the correct venue. I would suggest that you seriously need to stop your ankle-biting campaign against Guy Macon, but carry on creating diffs for your future ANI visit. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Back in the spring, Macon said users should not talk about each other on the ref desk, but only here or on their individual talk pages. When did he change that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, nor do I know what that has to do with the topic of this thread. You inject your off-topic criticisms of Guy Macon at seemingly every opportunity,[333] and this is merely a continuation of the pattern. You have been called out on it multiple times by multiple editors, you have zero support for it, and yet you continue. As I said, please carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

BMK asked why the discussion was at the ref desk talk page rather than here, where (according to Macon himself) it should be. It's not off-topic. It's totally on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask a simple question: what is thread trying to achieve? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I think a little bit of focus is called for here. Is there any justification for what Medeis did? A question was posed on the science desk: "If you dip a cube of metal, plastic, glass or nonporous ceramic/rock in diarrhea infected with the hardest to rinse deadly germs, how long would you have to rinse it with a showerhead before the top becomes food-grade clean and you could lick it?" I think it is a smart-alecky question and even Nimur's response ridicules the question. It is not clear whether Medeis acted properly or improperly. But how can this dispute be going on for a week? And why is Medeis being threatened with a topic ban? If the question is so important let Sagittarian Milky Way ask it again. I think the question can be rephrased in a way more appropriate for a science reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

1. The straw poll was about far, far more than one removal - that should be crystal clear if you read the responses. I don't know why you keep focusing on that removal. 2. This thread is about the straw poll, not the removal - or at least it was at first. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the straw poll was about the straw that broke the camel's back. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Why I posted this: as a neutral pointer to what is essentially a topic ban discussion -- whether or not it is called a "straw poll", that's what it was, a topic ban discussion -- that was taking place in a relative backwater of the project. Fortuna posted a pointer on WP:AN, and I thought a pointer on WP:ANI was worthwhile as well. There was no request for Admin action, and no need of any - as far as I'm concerned it could have been closed immediately, as it was informational only. Please don't overthink this.

However, while we're on the subject, I think we should discuss the fact that having "straw polls" in out-of-the-way-places about topic-banning people is not particularly equitable. We have two places already where topic bans can be considered: primarily AN, and sometimes AN/I when they arise out of an incident report (not to mention AE and Arbitration), and I don't think having them elsewhere is a good idea. All a "straw poll" really does is act as a place for people of like mind to pick up their pitchforks and torches to brandish on the march to the Admin noticeboards. If the inciting incident is minor, there shouldn't be a "straw poll" at all. If the inciting incident is major, it really should be started on the Admin boards ex nihilo, and not with partisans bused in from elsewhere.

JMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

An admin has closed the discussion on the ref desk talk page, so I think this item could be closed also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 15 October 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.

Complaint about SirChan

SirChan has been editing Houston TV station articles "his" way, with one other editor saying "That's not how it's done at Wikipedia." I reverted SirChan's edits, but then he reverted my edits. Here's what he had to say:

"Thank you for your concerns about my recent edits. I would like to clear up some confusion that most There has been some confusion among the city= and location= lines in the infobox. The city= is meant for the City of License (COL) and the location= is the Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA). The COL is often neglected on these pages and is an important piece of information to stakeholders in the broadcast industry due to longstanding regulatory framework. These should not be left blank for consistency, even if it is licensed to the main city in the market, as many markets are two (or sometimes three) principal city markets.

Also, I have placed the link to the Houston TV template (always buried in the bottom of the page) in the location= since it is more appropriate for the topic than a general link to the metro area (which can be reached in the infobox label(s). I appreciate your efforts on innovating the Houston TV articles and template better to eventually reach Featured Article (and perhaps Featured Template) status as a shining example to similar pages in other cities. Please reach out to me on my talk page if you have anymore concerns."

I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. Could you talk to SirChan and explain that "his" way may not be the right way? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, SirChan is correct about how TV infoboxes are supposed to be structured — the fact that not all of them actually are is not a reason to revert somebody who corrects some of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I had was with the duplicate use of the template (and over the years the difference between the city and city of license fields has become nigh confusing, this needs to be rectified). The revert mentioned that I did was mainly because of the use of the template which just throws the reader somewhere they weren't expecting (an template they already see on the page rather than an article about the Houston metro), and I admit that I should have expanded the explanation for reversion. Otherwise SirChan is doing pretty good work here and I have no issue with the vast majority of their edits. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

I edited the page for the plot section of "There Will be Blood". It incorrectly identified the last line of the film as "I'm done", but it is "I'm finished". I editorialized it slightly by changing "says casually 'I'm done'" [sic] to "exclaims 'I'm finished!'" I can live without the "exclaims", although I think it is more accurate, but the verbatim dialogue needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.152.188 (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would seem to be a false positive. If you haven't already you should submit a false positive report per the instructions at WP:CBFP. I've reverted ClueBot and restored your correction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive Draft Deletes

This can be dealt with at the SPI, which can be found here. Also, please just deny the sock instead of repeatedly pointing out the obvious. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Quinton Feldberg Many Disruptive Reverts including: Draft:National Ascension Monument, Template:Atatürk Monuments, Statue of Liberty (disambiguation)--Dustum Khan (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Sock. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Have you filed a sockpuppet report, Quinton Feldberg? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Yes. But nobody seems to be paying any attention. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Please block the WP:DUCK. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) You are deleting my Draft:National Ascension Monument. Even if my reverts were bad, which they were not, there is no reason for you to delete my draft!!--Dustum Khan (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Not a reason to delete my article in the draft space.--Dustum Khan (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC) ""  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Repeated closure of RfC by involved editor + alteration of others' talk page comments

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.

---

Related link: the same incident is the subject of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arianewiki1_reported_by_User:VQuakr_.28Result:_.29, but the problem I want to raise is not edit warring. Feel free to somehow merge the complaints if that is the way it is done. EDIT: This thread has now been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive352#User:Arianewiki1_reported_by_User:VQuakr_.28Result:_.29 with, as far as I can tell, no discussion or action. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I was summoned to a request for comment by the bot a few days ago, to which I started contributing. As far as I can remember, I had no interaction with the page or the involved editors before that. Before taking part in the RfC, I looked up the page a bit and saw that this was obviously part of a content dispute between Arianewiki1 and Attic Salt (whom I shall both notify of this thread, though only the former is my reason for posting here), but I decided to ignore it.

At my second reply, I kind-of edit-conflicted with Arianewiki1, who had stricken all of Attic Salt's recent posts based on the fact that Attic Salt had put the "retired" banner on their userpage. I un-stroke the RfC part (missed the rest and was too lazy for a second edit) with the comment You do not get to close an RfC early just because the initiator has left, especially when you are involved in that RfC. I also templated Arianewiki1's talk page with {{uw-tpv1}}, which was probably a mistake from my part, both WP:DTTR-wise and because the template was not exactly putting the finger on the problem, but I believed it was clear enough.

Arianewiki1 then reverted with a "ANI this if you wish" comment. (It also removed some of my comments including one on the topic of the RfC rather than the striking posts thing, but that might be a good-faith mistake.) Things heated up then (Attic Salt replacing the RfC tag, Arianewiki1 re-removing it).

Arianewiki1 eventually closed the RfC. Now: if some uninvolved editor had closed the RfC as malformed after it opened, I would have found it reasonable though a bit heavy-handed, because the RfC was poorly formulated (and I said as much). Still, there are a ton of problems with that. First of all they were obviously heavily involved. Second, even accepting the closure rationale (which as written looks completely bollocks to me - that RfC was poorly formulated, but it was a valid form of dispute resolution), they could have closed the RfC immediately after it popped; I suspect they did not realize the RfC was poorly formulated until reading RedRose64's comment (or mine), and at that point jumped on the apparent opportunity. Third, reading use dispute resolution forums such as an WP:ANI (emphasis added) sends chills down my spine.

They asked at ANRFC for someone to evaluate their closure a posteriori (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Plasma_.28physics.29.23Request_for_comment) but at that point I am at the limits of my AGF: either they knew this was not proper procedure by a mile and attempted this to cover the tracks, or they have big issues understanding written English. I cannot see how someone can know about ANRFC but still close RfCs where they are one of the two camps.

I believe Arianewiki1 needs at the very least a strongly worded explanation about WP:INVOLVED (as it applies to editors closing RfCs) and WP:TPG. It is not their first time at ANI and the "come at me bro" edit summary ANI this if you wish do not give me much confidence they have the most collaborative intentions or the steepest learning curve, but that is only my gut feeling.

The whole thing also showed Arianewiki1's behavior toward Attic Salt to be (let's say) less than optimal: unsubstantiated sockpuppetry aspersion, bad faith assumption (if an RfC is not an attempt to reach consensus, I don't know what is), reverting on Attic Salt's userpage. That looks equally unacceptable to me, but it may be partially excusable due to a long history of sparring between the two (I have not checked whether this is indeed the case). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors notified. I might monitor this, but I might not; please ping me if my input is needed (though I doubt it will be, since I have no more familiarity with the dispute than what I linked to here). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned by some of Arianewiki1's behavior, but there's probably nothing for administrators to do here unless the situation escalates further. The underlying content dispute at Talk:Plasma (physics) is ... quite confusing; I'm not completely sure what changes are being advocated after reading the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: there cannot be a long history of conflict between these two, because Attic Salt is a new editor. To me the WP:BITE problem here is the most severe (not that the 3RR violation or the removal of other editors' comments would have been ok either). Arianewiki1 seems to have backed off, so I am unconvinced that there is any admin attention needed with the possible exception of the bright-line 3RR vio, which as you noted is already open at the appropriate forum. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:@Tigraan:@VQuakr:The use of this ANI is looking more and more like character assassination and ganging up / gaming a User rather than solving the actual problem. I do suggest that you present the facts and not the unfounded insinuations. e.g. Saying "...not that the 3RR violation..." What 3RR violation? The statement is false, because the current ANI has not been proven. You should be stating "possible 3RR violation" or in saying "Arianewiki1 seems to have backed off" implies that I guilty of something, but all I've been doing is being bombarded on multiple fronts defending myself and my right or wrong actions. Worst is saying "I am unconvinced that there is any admin attention needed with the possible exception of the bright-line 3RR vio, which as you noted is already open at the appropriate forum.", which is seemingly an attempt to influence other who read to your own presented ANI.

I was 100% right to suspect a sock, and I did openly explain why. The history of Plasma (physics) and Plasma cosmology have been fraught with socks and those that wish to promote alternative theory agendas. Saying "...but it may be partially excusable due to a long history of sparring between the two (I have not checked whether this is indeed the case)" is merely innuendo not fact. If the issue that WP:BITE "is the most severe", both of you here haven't presented an adequate case. Anyone can instigate sock investigations, especially when the evidence sees an IP and User begin to be seemingly connected, working in unison or act oddly. Perhaps the User could have been unaware that socking was wrong. (All I was after was to see if it were the case.) If so, you can steer then in the right direction. The action was not personal. Even now, the IP has reverted edits on the disputed Plasma (physics), again wrongly accusing me of WP:OWN.[334] I've attempted to solve it with compromise stated here.[Talk:Plasma (physics)#Reorganised text]

Plainly VQuakr behaviour to this, especially the unnecessary incivility, is not unacceptable. (It has greatly reduced the sting of their own case.)

I have made a number of mistakes with this situation and have learned from them. If you so desperately want me to be sanctioned, then start presenting evidence of actual egregious intent where I have not shown any remorse or contrition.

Note: I replied to this ANI yesterday, but it has seeming disappeared. I am currently having problems with the visual editor for some reason, so forgive the sometimes apparent loss of my train of thought. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: despite my not having any access to information you didn't, I pointed out the spurious nature of your sockpuppetry investigation request at [335]. You seem to have missed the part in my post above where I said I did not think sanctions against you are warranted (though I would support an indef ban against you if you ever repeated the WP:BITE violations, and your deflection regarding your indefensible attacks on a newbie remains concerning). Prioritize brevity. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:This response [336], then deleted [337] had the uncivil reply "Please go read WP:BITE while you f**k off." Yet it is now perfectly fine to lecture me on what sanctions should or should not be imposed, and cast ever widening dispersions and innuendo. Your replies are now bordering on both WP:Harassment and WP:Hounding, and I am getting more distressed (three days now) with the fact of falling into some simple technical mistake, so that I will be sanctioned. Doing this kind of thing within an WP:ANI is inexplicable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean to ping power~enwiki or myself in the previous post? It seems like a reply to me. Can you clarify? VQuakr (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I opened this thread after virtually no interaction with you. Even if you think VQuakr is out to get you (which, to the best of my knowledge, they are not), please at least imagine the possibility that you did something seriously wrong, not just a "simple technical mistake". I have nothing against you in particular, I am not a litigious editor who brings anyone crossing my path at ANI, I am not on a mission to support the older editors against the newer. I know that opening an ANI thread about you is going to stress you, I know it is going to lose a lot of time from you, me and other editors, and I know it will not solve the underlying content issue; so unless I am mad or sadistic, I must have a not-so-bad reason to do that.

If you cannot see why your actions were wrong, and more wrong than a "simple technical mistake", ask. Ideally you would have asked as soon as you saw me revert you on the talk page, rather than after being dragged at ANI; but better late than never.

For starters: none should close a debate in which they took part. None should edit others' talk page comments, unless specifically allowed by some item of the list at WP:TPO (notice that It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting is not the only reason behind this, it is merely the reason for "do not correct spelling/grammar/etc."). None should edit another editor's userpage, and none should edit another editor's talkpage except to post a message, unless there is good reason to do so; and other users are allowed to un-retire after one minute or retirement, or more generally to be stupid, lying, or unpleasant on their own userpages without giving you the right to edit it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Found missing post, which is as follows;

Comment

Tigraan's report here is disturbing as it glosses over some of the addition fact which I stated to the still open the 3RR response. The ANI here is unfair, and Tigraan should let the 3RR lapse before furthering these issues. The matter is very confusing to both editors and admins, and this is particularly difficult for me to defend myself, especially on multiple fronts.

I do agree that the striking was a big mistake. I did it, and I accept responsibility and any reprimand. I will never do that again, but the rest is circumstantial. I did write the original text, and spent sometime making sure is was logical order and correct, and I did so because the troubles occurring with reverts and misconceptions given by several users.

The claims by the IP and Attic Salt that the first paragraph did not explain was plasma was, and by them changing the order implied something else. I reverted these changes, only to find an Rfc in place. Attic Salt did not debate the problems beforehand to gain consensus, but went straight to the Rfc. I explained my reasons, which they did not really adequately respond.

I suspected that the IP and Attic Salt might be a sock, as their displayed similar and odd behaviours, so I asked for an sock investigation and put that to Attic Salt and explained why. (I was apparently wrong, and I have extended my apologies and explanations of this to Talk:Attic Salt.

Attic Salt's behaviour was a bit erratic of this, including the 'retire' statement, and this was clear indication of not being serious with the Rfc. It might have been naivety of a new user, but there was the possibility it might not be. From the additional confusing responses to the Rfc, its poor wording and posed question being already false, I closed the Rfc formally. (It was already opened 7 days, and showed no chance of of resolution.) I explained the in the closure[338] "If an Rfc is still required, it should state a valid question that meets the guidelines. Else use dispute resolution forums such as an WP:ANI "

The thread in question has now closed, could you please state any continuing issues. (It seems a miscommunication in its closer by Attic Salt may have been a contributing factor.)

(Please note I am having troubles with reply for some reason, and have made four attempts to reply and lost the text, which is very frustrating. Forgive an discrepancies in reply.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: I just now removed the "close" by a participant, per WP:RFCEND. Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No or Support/Oppose !votes, just let the RfC run for 30 days. Then let an uninvolved person close it, if a close is necessary. It might be more efficient to have a Survey section and a Discussion section, to separate Yes/No !votes from endless threaded discussion. I currently have no comment on the rest of the issues brought up in this thread, as I have not examined individual edits or removals on that talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Arianewiki1 needs to completely stop her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior before she gets hit with sanctions like a block or one-way IBAN. She needs to completely stop altering other users' posts, and also needs to stay off of other users' talkpages. Keep discussions on article pages, not usertalk, and keep posts civil and respectful and collaborative. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  I do not think WP:BATTLEGROUND is at play here, or at least not intentionally. I think it is more a case of not knowing / understanding the rules. If Arianewiki1 had not reverted my reversion of their striking the RfC, but instead complained/asked for clarification etc. I would never have come here; but they have and the issue was not looking like it was going to disappear by itself.

I do not think I can make a productive reply to Arianewiki1's posting in the current thread. However, I see they now admit striking the RfC was a mistake, though I am not sure they realize why. I still think a strongly worded explanation about WP:INVOLVED (as it applies to editors closing RfCs) and WP:TPG is needed, so that it is very clear they cannot play the ignorance card again. (I am thinking something along the lines of "Unless you have exceptional reasons, don't close RfCs where you are party to the debate, don't change talk page comments, and don't edit others' user pages".) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Why did you have to do this? The alleged combatants equally want it closed because of the complexity of the issue, and reset the Rfc to work through the problems and complexities of the debate. I explained in the closure[339] "If an Rfc is still required, it should state a valid question that meets the guidelines...." The latest closure was made by Attic Salt not me. Please reverse this', let's have a rest and a few breaths, and work through the changes. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

RfCs typically run for 30 days. There is absolutely no urgency here. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFCEND. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender:::I did. "The poster can close it at anytime." They did. Attic Salt was the poster. Please read the WP:RFCEND again yourself, and retract. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what it says at all. Please re-read it. Please also learn to indent your posts properly with the correct number of colons in order to nest your reply correctly under the post you are replying to. I have done that for you above. Softlavender (talk)

Softlavender, Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No or Support/Oppose !votes suggests that you think the early close rationale is WP:SNOW; it is not. As I read it, the early close rationale is primarily WP:RFCEND item 1. That item links to SNOW, but within a parenthetical "e.g."; in other words SNOW is not the only legitimate reason for the poster to withdraw. If you think it should be, feel free to propose changing that e.g. to an i.e. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the entire sentence that I wrote rather than quoting part of it. You also misunderstand "WP:RFCEND item 1", which allows for the poster to withdraw an RfC, but not to close it. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please. This is not a battle of wills, and I had nothing to do with the final closure. I disagree with Softlavender because that is not how I read it nor Attica Salt. Withdrawing it means we can start afresh. Softlavender your preventing that. Either ping the contributors and ask their opinion to close, but come back to the ANI. My reputation by sanction is on the line here, and you arguing about trivialities that have nothing to do with me in this instance. Days of this bickering is placing much stress on me. Please stop this now! Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing closing with withdrawing. If he wants to withdraw, he can simply withdraw, but he cannot close his own RfC, assess the consensus, etc. Your own actions are independent of his (you are two different people), and nobody is confusing the two, so you have nothing to worry about on that score. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good ole parallel debating. We should devise a way to transclude the article talk into the ANI part. I'm probably reversing my position and my latest is here and here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved please collapse all the above (starting at Why did you have to do this? The alleged combatants...)? It is about a second closure of the RfC, this time by Attic Salt, that may or may not be out of process but is certainly non-actionable and not really relevant to the subject of the thread (actions taken before and by Arianewiki1). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC again, [340]. It may be necessary for at least one un-involved admin to comment on the closure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Once again, I have reverted the close by a participant, per WP:RFCEND, and also reverted the close of this ANI by an involved person. Nine people have participated in the RfC, and there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No or Support/Oppose !votes. Therefore it is best for the RFC to run the standard 30 days, and then let an uninvolved person close it, if a close is necessary. Or just die out. It might be more efficient to have a Survey section and a Discussion section, to separate Yes/No !votes from endless threaded discussion. One last comment: The RfC question is neutral and brief, so it follows standard WP:RFC format. There isn't really a need to determine the exact wording of the "definition"; the question is merely whether there should be a definition of plasma in the first paragraph of the lede. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I request at least a trout of Softlavender, for repeatedly insisting on keeping a mal-formed RfC open against the will of all the participants, and even after a new one had been opened. WP:IAR is a rule and Softlavender's slavish insistence on enforcing a counter-productive rule is becoming disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, there was nothing whatsoever malformed about the RfC. Nor did all nine of the participants agree it should be closed. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Req range block of IPs

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.

---

Requesting range block of 75.171.112.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 174.26.109.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.171.8.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) etc. for ongoing talk page vandalism. Some examples: [341] [342] [343] [344]. AIV suggested coming to ANI for a range block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the contribution history of 75.171.112.167/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the same type of talk page vandalism dates back to July 2017. Is there another way around without blocking this massive range? Note: Despite of the size, barely anything constructive comes out of this range. Alex Shih^Talk 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it looks like there could be a school on that IP range somewhere. Bart Simpson, homophobic vandalism, a high school, comic books, G.I. Joe... these are the interests of teenage boys. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 12 October 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.

Talk page; verging on trolling.

Just a quickie. Could someone please advise User:Cabayi why edits to user talk pages such as this are liable to be viewed as trolling, or just to "grow up"; particularly when it is blatant retaliation to having been reverted in an article? Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I was making a point about the function of infoboxes which you seemed determined to ignore. If we're here at ANI then the point has been made beyond the level I intended, but it seems it HAS been made. Cabayi (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it was purely WP:POINTy behaviour then. Thanks for establishing that. — fortunavelut luna 15:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Going by keywords, mathematician was the second qualifier used to describe her.If a reader is not affording to take even a cursory glance (that would be sufficient to drag him/her until there), even infoboxes would do little good!And, what does unrestrained manner actually mean?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit template

While I was mostly inactive, did someone change the rules so that {{Copy edit}} should be placed on the talk page instead of the article page? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

From Template:Copy_edit/doc: "...and should be added at the top of the article page.". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's about what I thought. PBS has disagreed with this repeatedly over at Charles I's journey from Oxford to the Scottish army camp near Newark. He feels that as it's directed to editors, instead of to readers, it shouldn't be there. I'm not going to add the template back again if he removes it again, but he does seem to be going against consensus on its use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Other thoughts, now that I know what page you're talking about:

1. "An unanimous"? That's an odd choice, PBS.
2. Sarek, careful about just reverting with no edit summary; using popups instead of rollback doesn't make it OK.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, sorry about the lack of edit summary there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting. Someone makes a bold edit it is reverted. Editor then reverts that revert and comes here ignoring the comment on the talk page to explain the revert with a link to the MOS to explain it (diff). @user:SarekOfVulcan is this an aberration in you behaviour or do you usually ignore BRD and an article talk page and go strait to ANI?

@ Floquenbeam this is not the place to discuss the placement of an a or an in front of a vowel the place is on the talk page of the article. But to give another example is it "a historian" or "an historian" often these things are dialect based (as I said the talk page is the place to discuss that issue). -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The {{copy edit}} template is transcluded a total of 1942 times; it is on a talk page only 78 times. Of the first 5 talk pages where it is included, it is not trying to be used the way you want to use it in any of them (after that I lost interest). Indeed, the categorization doesn't work when the tag is placed on a talk page, it only works when placed in an article. In short, while what you propose might make sense, it is definitely not how we currently do things here. There are dozens of maintenance templates that are placed on the article page. If you don't think it's an appropriate template, argue that on the talk page, but if it is appropriate, it clearly goes on the article page not the talk page. If you think all maintenance templates should go on talk pages, start an RFC to change our long-standing practice. I might even support.

I'm not terribly interested in a long discussion about "an unanimous"; my spidey-sense tells me such a conversation would be a time sink. If someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole, more power to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the observation that the template is (partially) directed at editors, but I believe it is also directed at readers. It is basically a message telling the reader that if they find the prose isn't up to snuff, this is something that is known, and we want to know that we have it on our to do list. It is also the implicit message "hey, want to help us fix it?"

It is not uncommon to get complaints sent to OTRS that such maintenance templates make the article look ugly. In my opinion, that's a feature not a bug.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be an editor if it weren't for cleanup templates. I eventually realized that Wikipedia depended on people like me to fix problems. But, on the other hand, I think some of our cleanup templates are relics of a bygone era, like Geocities-style "this page is under construction" banners. Those need to be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO the CE template is ok if the article really needs attention (e.g. lots of grammatical or spelling errors due to being written by non-fluent English speakers, though the content might otherwise be excellent). It shouldn't be used if there's a few errors (just fix them instead) or if there's a disagreement (use the talk page). I do generally believe that most of those templates (including CE) would be better on the talk page than cluttering the article, so if site practice is moving in that direction, I see it as a good thing. I take NinjaRobotPirate's point about fixing problems but maybe there could just be a "can you help us improve this article?" link on the article page, that would go to the talk page. Or the the "edit" tab could even just be changed to say "improve" or something. I like the Geocities comparison. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Erica Sweet

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Erica Sweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Would appear to need a talk page access adjustment. Jim1138 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Adjusted, thanks Jim. Alex Shih^Talk 05:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Personal attack in the newly registred User name User:ЩеГоЕбемДжингито

Suspected sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov who is an edit-warrior, made personal attacks against me in Bulgarian, registering an inapropriate User:name, which is swear sentence.Jingiby (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Bishonen. Alex Shih^Talk 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I've username-blocked, and not the nice soft "Could you please change your username, dear" kind of block, either. Edit summaries revision deleted. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

Thank you. You know, despite the edit summaries, which are personal attacks, the meaning of his User name is swear sentence against me. Very strange editor. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack made by User:Spring3390

See 1 and 2. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That was, what, five and a half days ago? And he was warned not to do it again? I don’t see that any more needs to be done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks made by User:Guglielmo Embriaco on edit summary

Suspected sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov who is an edit-warrior, made personal attacks against me in Bulgarian and English on the edit summary. Check here please: 1 and 2. He is calling me paid editor, terrorist and Bulgarian Muslim. Jingiby (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The quacking is loud! Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Reset a rangeblock for North Carolina vandal

A vandal has been using North Carolina IPs to disrupt music articles. Special:Contributions/2602:306:CDA2:E890:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked six times, and is currently serving a six-month block. However, Special:Contributions/2606:A000:8C06:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 is back in action after a one-month block – this rangeblock needs to be re-established. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked also for six months. Widr (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That'll do it. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC Closure Review Request

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

---

I have never posted a request for a closure review before, so please bear with me if I make mistakes in how to present this. Swarm advised me to post this on ANI. Attempts to discuss with the closer have been unfruitful, as the revised version of the closing still presents the same problems as the original. [345]

It is striking that the closer has included in his closing that under WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay) WP:RS are not required per WP:V, if a majority holds a certain "opinion". He imposed this community "Truth" in his closing over the STRONG objections of at least three editors (including myself).

The closing also supervoted on a sourcing dispute between myself and Icewhiz regarding WP:RECENT, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:CRYSTAL. The closer has "resolved" this sourcing dispute between two editors by supervoting, where no clear consensus emerged regarding the policy based source disputes.

It is fairly difficult to have a consensus discussion with editors who don't feel they need to follow our policies. In fact, my recent attempts at discussion on the source page regarding "Parliamentary Democracy" have produced comments similar to the extended discussion: [346]

(This includes use of primary sources and opinion articles.) Unfortunately the closing has limited me to discussion with the same editors (which has not been productive).

I am not asking that any content disputes be resolved here, but I would like to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution - I am leaning towards some combination of mediated discussion or RS/n to resolve the disputes that will arise about revisions to the lede. The Mediated Discussion would be to ensure that our core policies are respected (including WP:V) and RS/n would allow for independent review of questions regarding WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:CRYSTAL between myself and Icewhiz (Which were inappropriately supervoted by the closer.) I would like to know if the community would be ok with this.

Additionally, I would ask that the community consider overturning the RfC so that its non-policy based outcome does not bias future discussions. Currently editors seem to feel their position is "strengthened" by the outcome of the RfC and the closing, both of which demonstrated a shocking disregard for core policies including WP:NPOV, WP:RS and especially WP:V.

I am also asking the community to consider the lack of WP:RS presented in this discussion in light of the complex and voluminous body of scholarship on Democracy in ISLAMIC societies. (As just one example, the lengthy article I just read in "The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law") - I welcome community discussion on how to work this into our articles based on recent developments in scholarship, but I don't think this will be possible without addressing the problems that were created by this closing.

The closer is Winged Blades of Godric.

Thank you, Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a protracted discussion in the RfC between Seraphim System and a number of other editors, including me (in retrospect, I probably should've just voted and provided a number of sources - I'm learning). The RfC contained a number of elements (with varying levels of support, however support for all was fairly clear). Regarding striking democracy which Seraphim System is attempting to challenge (based on Britannica) - there was support from @Tiptoethrutheminefield:, @GGT:, @Yerevantsi:, @Alexikoua:, @EtienneDolet:, @Jeppiz:, @AusLondonder:, @Khirurg:, @KazekageTR: (who did not vote, but did post extensive comments), and IceWhiz. Seraphim System was the sole dissenter per my reading of the discussion (so 10-1). Sources were provided in some of the discussion. Following the close, Seraphim System also engaged in recent edit warring which was reported to 3RR [347] by @Dr.K.: regarding the use of democracy. Recent sources (including, for instance, the 2016 Democracy Index) do not support Seraphim System's position. This is not a content dispute between two editors - but between Seraphim System and approx. 11 other editors. For the record, I did not open the RfC, and while I engaged in discussion with Seraphim System - I was not the main driver here. I also want to note that Seraphim System also engaged in what some may see as "retaliatory editing" on Israel on this matter - Israel Revision as of 03:12, 8 August 2017, which she also discussed on the Turkey talk page - [348] [349].Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

he content dispute is not going to be resolved here, so I don't see any need to engage it. The issue here is that at least THREE established editors objected to the fact that those who supported the proposal did so on the basis of their personal opinions, and "Truth", rather then WP:V and WP:RS. The fact that the RfC closing was not based on WP:RS is undisputed, it is plainly stated in the closing itself where WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay) is cited. The sourcing disputes from the extended discussion (that only a few editors participated in) should not have been supervoted in the closing in an attempt to capitalize on the disorder and confusion created by this RfC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you missed that the part. essay was a supplementary guide to IAR which is a plicy!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I am not seeing any alternate-way this could be resolved without another RFC, as discussed in the addendum at my original closure.Thus, I stand by it.I also fail to see concerns of super-voting, save the one that would be obviously present in a version of the close as wished by Seraphim.And participants do not need to partake in extended discussions to make their view heard by the closer.And @ All those who wish to evaluate my close:-- Please mandatorily go through the entire discussion.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, let me be crystal clear on this point, one would have to bend over backwards to construe the conduct during this RfC as being good faith conduct. I'm concerned that the bias against the concept of Muslim democracy as a whole, and the non-source based POV was already upheld in the closing under WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay.) Whatever went wrong in this RfC will likely be repeated in a second. I have already stated in other venues that I feel the outcome was racist. In the real world if a court said "Evidence is only required to pass judgment on whites", I would think it was racist. And I think this outcome is racist. I think that if an RfC was held in ARBPIA to remove the word democracy because Israelis abuse Palestinians and no sources were given, only a list of "bad things about Israel" based on comments like "Israel is not a democracy because it is a Jewish State" that all hell would break loose on Wikipedia. It is a double-standard, and I would strongly prefer moderation or participation from uninvolved editors in a sane and more public discussion, that respects our core policies. (Whatever the outcome of that discussion may be.) As for the IP vandals who wrote "musrat whore" on my usertalk page, the IP was blocked, but most likely the editor is still one of us right? And I don't know who it is, and we are never going to find him. The sockpuppetry and abuse and racism in this topic area is rampant and notorious - ideally these articles would be cleaned up through a major community effort and then placed under ARBCOM restrictions. But for now I am asking for more community involvement in resolving the issues that have been raised by the RfC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, your t/p reply to me and the afore-mentioned post makes me more stubborn to stay by my close.But let me strongly caution you to avoid casting unsubstantiated and unwarranted aspersions and personal attacks on other editors.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't bother. You closed an RfC based on WP:COMMONSENSE. Racism on this level, where controversial edits about a Muslim country don't need to meet WP:V because they are "Common Sense" should not be allowed to fester behind WP:ASPERSIONS. Enough is enough. I don't know if the community wants to "approve" of this reprehensible conduct and abuse of our processes, but let me highlight some of the comments the closure was based on:

• OR/unsourced analysis about whether Turkey was ever a democracy: forced assimilation practices, ethnic cleansing and repressions, towards all non-Turkish minorities. - not only is this unrelated synthesis, it's also untrue.
• Intellectual self-gratification: Reminds me of Voltaire's whole Holy Roman Empire saying: it wasn't Holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an Empire...In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy.
• Apparently this is all you need to say: Turkey even denies that an Armenian genocide took place.
• "Well, it would be highly misleading for our readers and would ultimately undermine the project's credibility. So the way we come to that conclusion is through consensus based off of reliable sourcing, but more specifically for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article." <--- from the nominator (of course this is all still sourced in the body of the article.)
• Unsourced POV: "Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves."

Once again, allowing a small group of editors to behave in a way that is destructive to the encyclopedia is damaging for the project as a while. One issue is that the "opinion synthesis" this RfC is based on are verifiablely false and in violation of every single one of our policies (but that's ok because it's an Islamic country and Erdogan is a Muslim, so its Common Sense). But I have become involved with other things, and if that is what the community wants to legitimize, then ultimately it will end up undermining the integrity of the project and put it more on the level of a tabloid then a scholarly resource. There will be forks, though, especially in other countries. It's only a matter of time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I kindly ask that someone post a plain link (not a diff) to where this RfC is? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Excellent point. I wish this report can be more straight forward: Talk:Turkey#RFC regarding a sentence in the lead (I believe). Alex Shih^Talk 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's the correct link and also pinging the other editors who objected and might want to comment here GGT KazekageTR Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps the closer could be asked to stop revising the RfC while this AN/I proceeding is open to avoid introducing new confusion to his already messy and off-topic close. He has just edited the closing to add WP:AGEMATTERS, an issue for which there is no consensus on talk. I have reviewed the entire discussion the the only two editors who discussed the Britannica source were me and IceWhiz - the closer has just added his "tiebreaker" vote on this source dispute as the "policy justification" for his close. I don't say this lightly, but I don't see much worth salvaging in this RfC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

My revision(s) did not even minimally affect the substance of my close.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No other editor supported democracy (there was some support for secular and other bits). Most editors probably left the discussion as it turned into a long wall of text and bludgeoning with some other elements. It is not surprising others ceased to respond to source arguements with some limited merit buried in the wall of text.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Serahim-- Each and every RFC participant is not required to counter your each and every specific query to register a oppose vote against your broader axis of argumentation.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• AN/I can't and shouldn't resolve the content dispute, and I am not asking them to. This is not only about democracy, or a continuation of one aspect the content dispute - different editors raised different objections to different pieces of the removal (including secular). The RfC AND its closing are a mess, and creating more problems then helping. It is entirely based on unverifiable, incorrect and unsourced POV. We do not write Wikipedia articles based on the Truth. Looking at the policies, what we are supposed to do is follow the established and widely held academic consensus until it is superseded. This is an issue on which no clear consensus emerged from the RfC where the arguments were based on bigoted rhetoric that is not directly (or even indirectly) supported by A SINGLE source. Add to all this the confirmed sock puppetry during the RfC. I think the whole thing should be reopened for source-based discussion amongst reasonable editors, and more community eyes on it can't hurt. I leave you with this Wikipedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzK9ScQ0LlI Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The original close was a bit oddly and inappropriately prescriptive; the revised close is much much better and definitely not overturnable. Rather than making drama (and leaving us with bizarre videos) the OP should get to work trying to gain consensus for a new very high level summary of the body in the LEAD. This is one of the hardest things in WP, btw, and something you should fully expect to take a long arc of careful work to achieve a stable consensus for. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I have better things to do with my time. The new revised closing is worse and it is supervoting. I am intensely disappointed that you are pretending it is not. I am not interested in working to gain "consensus" with editors who have trolled me on numerous articles (including the Israel article) and who have stated several times that they can make unsourced additions because some things are "difficult" to source. The Turkey articles are not high traffic and if there is no consensus to do serious work on them i.e. if as usual the community thinks I should be the one carrying the full burden of improving the article, then they will have to stay in the extremely poor condition I found them. It is really unfair to ask that of one single editor like it is my responsibility and I have not done my part. (When there is confirmed participation in this RfC of an account connected to long term abusive sockpuppetry in this topic area, you really can't even pretend to hide behind "consensus" this time.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the video - should I apologize if I am not really that invested in the outcome? It is racism and it is hard not to take it personally, especially when it is "protected" behind community policies that other editors are not even following. Without a significant increase of diversity of views in the editing pool from the top down, significant reform of the broken RfA process and the way that we handle SPI, my "careful work" is actually a waste of time. How much time can I expect to put in? The closing relies on IAR even though not a single source is cited in the Survey section. It's fairly disingenuous when we all know that our editors have no incentive and no reward for their "careful work." Everyone here is quick to say they stand with the freedom of the Turkish people, as long as it is an excuse to say something negative about "Islamofascist" Erdogan. As a Turkish editor, I have to say that an editing environment where abuses of one government (Israel) are excused and its democracy is still lauded (I am going to write about this off-wiki and do a full comparison, and if anyone wants to see the side by side of articles in these two areas, email me.) While abuses of another (Turkey) are legitimately and strongly criticized, by the same editors. It is obvious racism and as a Turkish editor, it is a very unhealthy environment and I don't want anything to do with it, especially when the community's double standard it is legitimized through proceedings like this. It is doubly unhealthy because it turns Wikipedia into a BATTLEGROUND, that puts me in a very bad position discussing Turkish democracy with editors who have in the past openly made Anti-Muslim and Pro-Israel comments on talk pages. It is a subject I am interested in discussing, but not like this. At least on ARBPIA, we have more editors who are interested so after a prolonged effort we do get some good work done and community enforcement of policies like WP:V is exceptionally high- Jytdog if you really think IAR is an appropriate policy to cite when closing an RfC, then I want the consensus that emerges from this AN/I report to be clear about that, because I will apply that consensus in my closings. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear that you are Turkish, which helps make sense out of all the emotion you have around this. You should keep that in mind yourself. And with regard to your comments about closings, see WP:POINT. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So it's ok to call my ethnicity into question as effecting editing, where IceWhiz discloses that he is active on Hebrew Wikipedia - I have been told that we consider disclosures of race/religion to be protected. But since I am Turkish so I guess it is ok to call me "emotional" - I really don't think you are in any position to offer me tibits of your didactic wisdom right now. This is not about my "emotion" it is a real and observable problem - trying to write it off because of my national background is WEAK. I will put the language in a comparative chart thing. If you want a copy of the incredibly unemotional study I am planning to put together, all you need to do is email me, I will send a copy to WMF and Jimmy. Finally, why are you citing WP:POINT if you are defending IAR as appropriate for a closing? I have read WP:POINT - something for which there is consensus at AN/I is not POINTY. Doing something you think is bad behavior before a community discussion is POINTY. Read it yourself Jyt. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I request you strike the above comment, and report this to oversight for revdel per WP:OUTING (and perhaps a few other policies - e.g. WP:NPA, WP:AGF). While I do admit to edit in the Hebrew Wikipedia (as may also be seen in my global account edit summaries!) - I have not stated, to the best of my knowledge, the other personal information that you are making assumptions about. Regarding the Turkey article - you are turning something which was not a personal dispute, and was argued on the merits, into what would appear to be one. I was one of many in that page (frankly - drawn in by the RfC, and my prior knowledge both of Turkey and contemporary sources).Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought you did on the Israel article t/p, where you were arguing that sources are not needed but I would not understand because I am not Jewish as a justification for content you wanted to keep in the article. You may not have said it explicitly, but it was clear from context since you proceeded to make a long argument about the Halakha and said that all Jews know in their heart the longing of the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem, that is how I understood the meaning of what you said. If you are now denying it explicitly, sure I will strike it, even though I think it is kind of silly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was User:Debresser, I got you two mixed up because the argument was so similar. If I remember correctly I was discussing with him, but then he was topic banned shortly before you joined the discussion. But sure, I will strike it. He also feels its a personal attack whenever anyone even mentions it! Funny. Anyway, the comment was about me, not you - don't take it personally. Fortunately, I am not that emotional. As for AGF, that is not something you should say about yourself when you assume the worst of others. Shake! Or, Quack Quack if you would prefer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I regret in engaging in that discussion with you - it was pointless, and devolved into a FORUMY discussion other a really elementary point (the importance of Jersusalem (and IIRC alt. names) to Jews going way back - based on knowledge of the sources). However, all I said there was that I have a working knowledge of Halakhic Judaism - as I also have with other religions (Several branches of Islam and Christianity, to a lesser extent others). Your statements here should be revdelled per WP:OUTING - I suggest you approach oversight or an admin with appropriate permissions. People generally do not like their editing called into question on the basis of their implied ethnicity, religion, or nationality - I haven't called your motivations into question in this regard, though your conduct here is far from exemplary.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I perceive mention of my religion or ethnicity as a personal attack only when it is mentioned without any connection to the actual points at hand. Which is something you should definitely refrain from doing. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is abominable that the response so far is: This is one of the hardest things in WP, btw, and something you should fully expect to take a long arc of careful work to achieve a stable consensus for. Anyone who reviews the RfC can see that it was closed based on IAR over objections that there was no source based discussion. One of the editors participating was banned as a suspected sock puppet of a long term problem editor in this topic area. I have spent more then a reasonable amount of time arguing with sock puppets, and my conduct during this RfC has gone above and beyond the requirements of good faith and AGF. The problem is not me, or my willingness to do work and it is a discredit to you to try to blame this on me. The problem is admin inaction, the broken RfA process and the lack of serious Sock Puppet investigations simply because improving articles on Turkey is just not a personal priority for most of the editors here and the topic area is more of a playground for trolls and sock puppets then a place to do any "careful work". Denying it and pretending there is no problem really begins to cross the line from the personal behavioral problems of a few editors to institutionalized policy-based racism. The fact that I do not enjoy working in an environment that is racist does not make me "emotional." It is entirely something that I am morally obligated to report and object to, and then I truly do, and please believe me, have better things to do then continue to argue about it, in good faith or otherwise. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words editors making comments that "Turks are like this" or "Turks are like that" or "Turks have done this" etc. should be required to post the WP:RS that these comments are based on. Otherwise, our talk page becomes difficult to distinguish from Stormfront. Do you see the difference: one is neutral discussion of views presented in secondary sources and the other is a collection of racist personal opinions that is now being given the status of consensus under "IAR" - I really, really hope that you can see the difference between a personal opinion and a statement that is based on WP:RS. What we have in this RfC are unsourced generalizations based on race/ethnicity - allowing this without requiring a discussion of the sources means that we can not gauge whether the source is a respected and widely cited academic source or Stormfront. In cleaning up this area, I have in the past actually found content that I was only able to trace back to Stormfront - so I absolutely reject any attempt to characterize this as "emotional" and I am repeating here what I said over and over again in the RfC, that consensus discussion must be based on sources. The close based on IAR should be overturned (with apologies for how much TIME I have had to spend on something that should be SIMPLE.) We can play a round of Stormfront or RfC, where I highlight comments from both and we try to guess whether the comment is from a Wikipedia RfC or a racist forum - here at Wikipedia we require the use of high quality sources. IAR is supposed to be invoked to make non controversial improvement, not in support of unsourced controversial comments that denigrate an entire nation. When we make critical statements like this on WIKIPEDIA, they really have to reflect directly an academic consensus or significant minority view that is verifiable in secondary sources.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• In regards to various allegations made here regarding racism of particular editors or the community as a whole (including a comparison to Storm Front), I want to point out the following diff: 14:14 9 oct 2017 in which Seraphim System poses the hypothetical of genocide of Jews in the context of the abstract concept of democracy. While one might posit this is but a hypothetical, there is some resonance here regarding claims of editorial competence/bias and OUTing (correctly or incorrectly) of allegedly Jewish editors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And you know what my WP:RS were? There were like, six of them, including a law review article and the Center for Constitutional Rights in NY (which files amici briefs with the United States Supreme Court) - it is not a hypothetical, I have actually tried to add this to the list of genocides before, and would have given my sources if asked in this or ANY other discussion.

EDIT: Sorry I thought you meant when I tried to add Palestinian Genocide - honestly your argument is a strawman, though it's worth noting that even though it was on a USER TALK page I STILL posted a source. If you don't know what Democracy means why should your unsourced opinions on it be given ANY weight in a consensus discussion? You think Democracy is the Bill of Rights, it's NOT. The BoR would not have even been passed without Col. Mason. The rights that we take for granted are not an entitlement and they are not a guarantee, they are privilege that Americans very nearly did not secure. It is a debt owed to those who stood up for it, but it has f*ked all to do with Democracy as a system of government. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not comment on the merits of the line of reasoning, nor would this be the place to do so, I merely thought it would be relevant to point out the choice of the hypothetical (which is entirely arbitrary and disconnected from the arguement, though the particular choice in an arguement after 1946 offers some obvious rebuttals).Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As an abstraction it doesn't matter nor does it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that t/p discussions should be based on sources and not personal opinions, especially when the topic is about something proctected and controversial like race/religion/etc. An abstraction of a fundamental principle of democratic theory, and the example that illustrates this fundamental principle is in no way comparable or analogous to what happened in this RfC. Nazism is probably the most common example discussed in University politics and philosophy courses when discussing whether democracy can produce bad outcomes and the sources for this are basic, widely accepted and copious. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway I think this is what you mean [350] and historically I absolutely want to clarify publicly that historically, academic consensus stops short of calling Hitler's rise to power democratic - the consensus is to characterize it is a failure of democracy because of [351] and the Reichstag Fire, so it has nothing to do with "1946" or Nazis - it is a common thought experiment in philosophy/theory/law classes to illustrate the basic concept of a rigid constitution, or Thrasymachus, supermajorities, or any number of other issues that come up in University level courses where different theories of democratic government are discussed like this [352] (yes I have actually read all this boring stuff). There is also this to consider: [353] - the fact that an abundance of sources exists for a thoughtful discussion makes it all the more frustrating that IAR was invoked here to support a consensus based on unsourced personal political opinions that reflected a deep ignorance of the subject matter. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Unpleasant Comments

• Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - What a mess about what a mess!! This appears to be a completely botched review of a good-faith botched closure. My first comment is that this is technically the wrong forum for RFC closure review, which should be done at WP:AN, not at WP:ANI. (I know; I have had a few closes reviewed at WP:AN.) However, now that this is well underway, it would be unproductive to move this to AN. Second, this appears to be a re-discussion of the original issues about the lede, rather than a discussion limited to the propriety of the close. If this needs to be re-discussed, it should be done by re-opening the RFC, or by a new RFC, not here. Third, it appears that the RFC has been reworked considerably after the close, which makes it nearly impossible, at least for me, to determine whether it was properly closed. Fourth, my own recommendation at this point is to Set Aside the close and the entire RFC and have a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:--It may be borne in mind that it was my re-edited close which was challenged.(Barring two inconseq. revisions which took place after this thread was opened. )And preparations of the new RFC is underway at the bottom of the same page.Lastly, when you self-admitted to have not reviewed my closure, why are you asking to set aside the close.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is ridiculous. The RfC was very conclusive and properly closed. There is absolutely no need for another RfC of any kind. This is just filibuster and sabotage by a user who did not like the results of the RfC (SerpahimSystem) and has been raising hell and wasting huge amounts of the community's time with his relentless efforts (he's been at it since July [354]). Rather than a new RfC, a topic ban for SeraphimSystem would be more appropriate. Khirurg (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

What I don't like is editors not posting WP:RS for their theories and disorganized arguments - it is disrespectful to myself and other editors who abide by Wikipedia's norms and voluntarily give our time to improve articles. As an editor who spends as much time cleaning up citations as I do adding content, I rather resent attempts to place the blame on me here. I dont have a set or strong opinion on the democracy issue, but I do have a strong opinion on all editors being equally required to follow basic policies when making edits and maintaining a basic respect for one another by not expecting "special treatment" - the need to use WP:RS is what distinguishes t/p discussions from forum discussions. The arguments that were made in this RfC were not persuasive because most were disorganized, off topic and unsourced, and more appropriate for a forum. Like most editors who have the beat interest of this encyclopedia at heart I welcome good faith source based discussion - I don't think my reputation here is to attempt to impose my personal views on articles without WP:RS and it is not ok for that to happen in this closure under Ignore All Rules. At this point, the new RfC that is stayed on the t/p is better organized because it asks editors to clearly state support or opposition for each part of the sentence, where consensus is difficult to gauge for the individual parts in the first discussion. Setting Aside under Rob's proposal would only mean that the non-source based arguments made in the first RfC will not be given the weight of consensus in the new discussion, and I don't object to that. The hope is that editors will learn from this that it is important to do the work to source your arguments and respect our core policies, if you want them to be given weight by the community. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) I must have misread this diff, because it sure looks like those are RSs being presented by an editor in the discussion. While not all of them may be perfect for the article (and some may not be RSs), there do appear to be some presented. And I don't find the assertions of racism and other allegations to be helpful to see what actually happened here. Quite frankly, I am not seeing where the consenus on that talk page was out of line with the close. It was not a shining example of an RfC, but it wasn't horrendous either. The best way to approach having the RfC closure changed would be to drop the aspersions, drop the allegations, stop relitigating the actual topic of the RfC and address (concisely) the actual problems with the close as you see them. Right now, after reading this section and the talk page, I'm not seeing where how the closer judged the consensus on the talk page wrongly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The diff is of the discussion between myself and User:Icewhiz, and it is the ONLY source based discussion in the entire RfC. Read this way, the close is a supervote on a discussion between two editors, and the many non-source based and off topic comments don't count one iota towards consensus under WP:Consensus - telling me allegations of racism are not "helpful" is like telling a rape victim to keep her mouth shut because no one gives a damn. While it may be true, I think it is absolutely ABOMINABLE to allow editors to freely engage in a forum-like discussion and make negative comments about a controversial topic (consider religion as an analogy) and then to call that non-source based discussion "consensus" in violation of WP:Consensus - unsourced synthesis is not common sense - here is ow I know it is not common sense: every editor there posted a different unsourced personal theory that synthesized a set of unsourced facts and then applied it to reach a conclusion about secularism or democracy. For example, "Because the Armenian genocide happened Turkey is not a secular country" - this isn't the second grade. If there is no source for this, I should not even have to waste my time replying for it and the weight given to it in a consensus discussion should be ZERO. If you take all the comments like this out of the equation, the close is nothing more then a supervote on a dispute between two editors about WP:CRYSTAL. None of this can be remotely construed as common sense and there was no consensus on this page. I don't really care how it is resolved to protect the egos of all the editors involved, I only care that it is resolved without wasting too much more of my time. It is absolutely DISRESPECTFUL to say this to an editor who spends her time sincerely reflecting the content of WP:RS (and yes doing this does take up a lot of time, and frankly is not really worth it for a project that is not going to honor its own policies). Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Ealdgyth and Jytdog above, the current/revised close is in line with the opinions and discussion presented in the RFC. You think its a supervote, almost no one agrees with you. Time to move on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, not to mention the confirmed sockpuppetry in the RfC. It's pretty difficult to respect a consensus one one account has already been linked to an abuse account on Turkey/Armenian genocide related articles. I'm not assuming anything bad, but under the circumstances it is difficult to assume good faith because the comments were all unsourced and pretty much what you would expect from abuse accounts in this topic area. I know User:Ealdgyth isn't really familiar with the full discussion and I don't think she's familiar with the topic. Should the RfC be set aside to allow the new RfC to proceed and hopefully produce a more coherent outcome? Yes, I think so. But its sometimes better to not continue to try to force a situation to work with people who you don't respect or who don't respect themselves or the project. The community inaction and denial of the obvious abuses of other editors and the placing blame on those volunteers is really unique to Wikipedia, and it's quite unsavory. I don't think denial is going to help save the project's integrity - it's already been banned by an entire nation. It may be time to wake up and the smell the ... roses, and think seriously about the future of the project and its credibility and integrity. But that's why it's great that Wikipedia is open source! These things happen - Stay positive! Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me give you a couple of tips. To most experienced English speakers, the primary school-level tactic of 'if you cant discredit the argument, discredit the person' should be avoided. Its easily ignorable and ultimately means people will listen to you less. In the above you disparage others, you dismiss Ealdgyth, you assume because people don't agree with you they are blaming or disrespecting you - respect is earned, and you don't earn it by blaming others for having different opinions to yourself and not agreeing with you. Oh and soapboxing about the decline of the project impresses no one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether it impresses you or not is immaterial. I don't need to discredit the person, they have done enough to discredit themselves here. I'm entirely capable of reading and understanding policies, and I didn't have to go to law school to see that the comments were bigoted and entirely unsupported by sources. With regards to the decline of the project, currently American companies do need to think serious about their overseas strategies especially in countries like India and Turkey and China (and possibly Brazil.) This is not limited to Wikipedia, but it includes Wikipedia, the overseas game is weak. I was shocked to find out that WMF does not even have a chapter in these countries, especially China. Of course the problems in producing content on the ground start at the top and work their way down. Unfortunately, where these countries has failed so far is in creating meaningful alternatives - and getting Erdogan to ban Wikipedia was too easy. Hypocrisy and oppression aggravate the human spirit in equal measure, and equal conditions without the hypocrisy is, in modern philosophy, considered a net improvement. To the extent that something is not working, to see this and double down on it is foolish. This is a failure that will have truly significant impacts going into the future of the project, and I think I will follow the example set by other editors and just sort of quietly give up. Don't do me any favors, do what you think is right, I will do the same. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough.Ealdgyth is one of our most highly experienced and respected editors and statements like they have done enough to discredit themselves shall be avoided from any sphere(s) at all costs.Just drop the stick and don't dig your own grave.(Also, AFAIK, there exists a Wikimedia India chapter.See here.)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have worked with User:Ealdgyth and to her credit medieval British history is one of the most high quality topic areas in Wikipedia. It is a pleasure and a joy to edit there. However, I don't think she is particularly knowledgeable about this subject area, which is sensitive. I am offering this as friendly advice in the best interest of the project - how Western perspectives have effected the writing of Turkish history and politics in particular has been the subject of a large body of work. This particular area of Wikipedia is not well-maintained. I have always treated Ealdgyth with the respect that she has earned. The inability of the project to accurately represent narratives about "OTHER" cultures is a serious one. It is not limited to this RfC but I think it's important for editors to understand that Wikipedia is nothing more then what we make it. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say herem. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally and sadly I think Vikipedi is one of the smallest sister projects with just over 500,000 articles. Surely part of the reason for this is the difficulty of the language. I am only one editor and the abuse in the topic area here on English Wikipedia is out of control, so there is not much I can do without support. They run a tight ship over on Vikipedi, but I appreciate how inaccessible the language is. My estimation of the omments and participation in this discussion is that the community seems largely uninterested in whether or not there is meaningful improvement and oversight w/r to Turkey related content. That is a choice. Like I said, I'm only one person. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

New Set of Comments

• Comment - I may have concluded too quickly that the mess is the closer's fault. The fact that the RFC has been edited extensively makes it nearly impossible to review. An RFC should be left as it is closed after it is closed. Who started editing the RFC after it was closed? In any case, this is not the place to debate the original issues. I will go back through the tedious history of the editing. Either the RFC should be set aside, or the RFC should be restored. If there was sockpuppetry, the sockpuppets should be discounted and blocked. If the Original Poster of this thread was the editor who started the mucking with the RFC after it was closed, then I agree with the comment that a topic-ban is necessary. I see that multiple editors agree that the close was valid and was not a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if the closure is challenged at the closer's t/p by any party, the closer can and should try to improve the close, if there is any remote possibility and the request for clarification seems to be made in a good-faith.While, I initially was reluctant to address him (Seraphim, you really need to learn about concise-ing your arguments, keeping them to the immediate topic and addressing the core issues), I later found that the closure may be better suited with an additional directive on the post-RFC way-out.I accordingly added a paragraph to my closure statement and posted a note on his t/p informing him about the addition to my closure and whether he was interested in starting the next RFC on the topic (per my revised closure).The next response from him was to start this ANI thread and thus, it was this close that is being challenged here.Here, at ANI, I saw him stating repetitively that WP:COMMONSENSE (a point which was mentioned in my close) is an essay (i.e. not a policy/guideline) and since, IHO, I should not take individual decisions on disputes about validity of new-age-RS sources w.r.t to Brittanica et al between 2 editors(It's another case though, that somehow Seraphim thinks/feels that all the other editors who wish to discount his by-default-valid-sources-and-arguments have to take part in long-drawn arguments with him and whoever has chosen to not engage him shall be discounted) and hence my closure was plainly wrong.So, I decided to insert certain phrasings in my close, addressing his afore-said queries and retracted back a certain portion of my new paragraph, which seemed to be too over-imposing on the next scheduled RFC.And, none of these even minimally affected the substance of the close.Thus, frankly, I fail to see the RFC has been edited extensively and the answer to your next _____.Also, some parties may find the development of the new RFC, several sections below, at the same t/p, more interesting than this thread.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if the closure is challenged at the closer's t/p by any party, the closer can and should try to improve the close[.] ... What? No. What part of "[n]o further edits should be made to this discussion" do you think that jibes with, Godric on Leave? A Train^talk 00:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, the closer is excused from it's purview. Revisiting and revising one's close is quite a common practice, based on the exact situations, motives and individual discretion. If you are not satisfied about my interpretation , feel free to bring it to the broader community for an exact review of it 's purview. Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• comment If this is the Turkey thread, I've fully protected the page for two days because of the ongoing edit war. Please let me know if a longer period is indicated.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no edit war on the page, unless the issue of Erdogan's full name or "Preaident" being used is some kind of long term trolling/abuse issue - in which case it is entirely unrelated to the subject of this thread. There has to be interest on both sides, and I don't know if Turkey has the interest (at this point, it doesn't really look like it.) Possibly ARBCOM involvement. Given the condition of the articles, I don't think it could hurt. But this is way above my pay grade. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While an edit war is not actually ongoing (ignoring the 5 October 3RR incident with Seraphim), what we do have is Serpahim making this edit - 20:41, 10 October 2017 in which the government type is changed to Neocolonialism in the infobox only (so - article lead, article body disagrees with infobox) and without any sources. Following reversion (by myself), The following was posted to the talk page - 21:06, 10 October 2017 - without any sources to back up this statement. Note that this edit was made concurrently to challenging the close of the RfC in which Seraphim advocated - on the RfC and in ANI (in the comments above) that Turkey is a democracy (or Islamic democracy?) as well as criticism of lack or quality of sourcing by other editors - so we have concurrent arguing in one forum that Turkey should be described by Wikipedia as a democracy and that sourcing is important, and an edit to the Turkey article itself (a rather important main-space article, which did pass GA review - which typically means one should be extra careful regarding editing) (without any sources!) that changes the government type to neocolonialism - which is a term typically applied to regimes in post colonial Africa in the 60s+.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Anyway I'm sorry but I really can't talk about this anymore. The requirement to source content is basic. I haven't been editing much because I have things to do and I simply do not have the time to argue about something this simple. Regarding English language Wikipedia, if the consensus is to not use WP:RS and this meets the standards, then most likely the problem is that my personal academic standards integrity are too high. I wholeheartedly support any and all measures that are in the best interest of the project's future, and I deeply regret how much (of my) time this has taken up. Lol. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - On reading the history of the talk page several times, I apologize for implying that the closer made a mess of things, although it is a mess. The recent extensive reformatting of the RFC does make it harder to follow the history. It does appear that there was a rough consensus to remove the sentence, and that the close of the RFC in question should be Affirmed, and the second RFC can go forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ladies, Gentlemen...steel yourselves and let's get on with it. I won't be participating as long as the community standard is to allow bigoted statements about Turkey without WP:RS, which is important. If any editors want me to specify which statements in this RfC I considered bigoted, they can contact me on talk and I will provide specifics. (At least one of these statements was directed at me personally.) I would not make an accusation like this without evidence, and I understand that I am making an accusation. You are free to uphold whatever standards you feel are appropriate for a free encyclopedia, and I am free to work on entirely unrelated articles. In my view recognition is either important, or it isn't. (One of the editors participating actually JUST accused me of genocide denial even though I have NEVER IN MY LIFE denied the Armenian Genocide.) For me recognition is always important. I think this discussion can be closed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - It would probably be a violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:ARBEE to note that the subject of this controversy includes East Thrace, which is in Eastern Europe as usually defined, and to apply ArbCom discretionary sanctions as a result. However, it would provide a way to deal expeditiously with stubborn editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up, I didn't mean to be ambiguous about that. It is what it is. Turkey from its history to its modern period is relatively underrepresented in academic studies as it is. Even in Ottoman History, which is a lot calmer, there are very few sources to work with. It isn't a problem that is going to be solved here, like this. The outcome of this discussion would not change anything, so its ok. I really wish I had not gotten involved with it at all, it was just a waste of effort. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm really sorry, by the way, for how much time this has taken up but thanks - I feel learned a lot from all this that will help improve my editing and participation in the future.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• So are you guys going to close this discussion and open up the RfC? I don't want to close a discussion that I started ... it looks like User:Winged Blades of Godric may have closed the RfC before it was picked up by the bot. I am definitely not interested in this RfC as long as editors do not have to follow WP:V and WP:RS. Maybe some of the other editors who objected to the removal of secular would appreciate if editors could provide WP:RS to justify the removal of a major and well-established fact - but they haven't participated in this discussion, so there is no indication that they would be involved in a second RfC. Before we close, I should provide a selection from the unsourced comments that the communtity has chosen to Affirm:

1. "modern Turks aren't like other Turkic people - but should we state this in the present tense - some 100 years after various assimilation programs?"
2. "You might find parallels in terms of purge levels to Lustration in the Eastern Bloc following the demise of the communist regimes (though I'm not sure if they bothered lustrating the local Pravdas...)
3. "Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such"
4. "The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) maybe but we don't parrot their bullshit about being a democracy." <== If you don't see what is wrong with this, ask me to explain.
5. "Turkey is not multicultural in any established sense. The main element that provides a second culture - the Kurds - are actively suppressed." - Do I need to explain how offensive this is when there are Circassians, Albanians, Jewish, Armenians, French, American, German, Laz, etc.? I guess Armenians are only important to mention in the context of genocide, but not in the jewelry they are known for producing, or their artisans or the way they make their manti differently. Yes, this is racist.
6. "Ottoman Turkey (and the empire outside of Turkey) was deeply multi-cultural - not in the sense that the elite in Istanbul embrace foreign language and culture - but in the sense society itself was deeply multicultural. Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Jews, and a large number of other groups and sects all lived side by side - all with their own culture and language. This changed in the events of the empire's dissolution. Turk and Turkish became ascendant and dominant in Turkey. The historic past and culture was to a degree erased and purged."

• If the community really can not yet see that this is prejudice and bigotry then I can AGF only so far as I can write it off as a general good faith cultural ignorance, where you do not even understand how wrong what you are saying is or WHY it is wrong, but I can not excuse that we are not asking for WP:RS, because continuing to push obviously prejudiced opinions without offering any sources to back those views up is willful and exceeds the bounds of good faith. If you ask me. That is the best that I can do here. Thank you all for your time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Apropos nothing, but why have you stopped doing stuff about the Nevilles? — fortunavelut luna 16:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz Boomerang proposal

• Oddly, you do not mention the long walls of text by yourself which were mainly un-sourced (including your previous comment - 09:26, 27 July 2017), and you fail to mention this assertion was sourced (at the end of the paragraph!) - "...Other than that - very small minorities. Ignoring Kurds - a single native language, single ethnic group, single religion - with small minorities. See ranking in well cited paper here (which includes Kurds): Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222.. Seems there is actually a wiki article with Fearon's ranking as well as Alesina's ranking - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - Turkey ranks low on diversity (and in both cases - the suppressed Kurds are the major contributors to Turkey's diversity - and even with them counted - it is low)." 11:05, 27 July 2017 + 13:07, 27 July 2017 -- so we have a cited journal paper (as well the cliff-notes wiki article of it + another linked) - to back the assertion that the degree of cultural diversity in Turkey is low. quite selective quoting here. Someone should WP:BOOMERANG these wide ranging accusations (in this thread alone - there have been several accusations of racism (as well as other editorial misconduct, attempted OUTING, etc.) directed towards several editors by name, as well as towards the Wikipedia community as whole.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all great but you did not say "cultural diversity in Turkey is quite low" - what you actually said, your actual words from several of the comments you made on talk are quotes above. For example modern Turks aren't like other Turkic people - but should we state this in the present tense - there is no excuse for that. None. You should consult WP:RS just to make sure you do not ever say something like this in public - I do this even when I am not editing Wikipedia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note Seraphim system moved my comment, it relates to point 5 in her long winded previous post - and was selectively quoted cutting out sources provided. The section heading is also Seraphim System's creation.

Regarding modern Turks aren't like other Turkic people - but should we state this in the present tense - which is also quoted highly selectively - I did NOT assert that, but rather this is something User:KazekageTR said (with a slight paraphrase and condensation - he posted a very long comment).Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On the merits of BOOMERANG - Seraphim System violated OUTING in this thread, violated NPA vs. several editors in this thread, and engaged in disruptive editing in this diff - [355], and per review of recent contributions possibly some others, e.g. [356] and some Turkey related pages - but requires a better reviewer than I).Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Re Nevilles, I did check before removing my work and the only edits from other editors were minor typo fixes, punctuation etc. Other articles like Wars of the Roses I left my work, because there have been edit from other editors. Not sure why this article is being brought up here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I will apologize to you publicly if I am wrong, but the sources look to me like primary sources in support of WP:OR, which HAS been pointed out to you. The fact that that WP:OR supports a strong bias that seems to include bizarre comments making distinctions on the basis of ethnicity and race like "modern Turks aren't like other Turkic peoples" is, in my view, sufficient justification to feel there is anti-Turkish bias in your writing (not just anti-Turkish politics, but anti-Turkish identity/language etc) - we don't have a word like anti-Semitism but how else should I take these? These are classic examples - and observably different from commentary of respected intellectual on this subject like Hrant Dink - I have seen this community indef editors for analagous behavior. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone, please, put this whole thing out of it's misery? Arkon (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding disruptive editing, note Seraphim System is blocked due to edit warring on Armenian Genocide, which is Turkey POV related, [357]. Concurrent to suggesting here that present day Armenians in Turkey (some 60k, down from 2000k in 1914) contribute significantly to the cultural diversity of Turkey.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Question for User:Icewhiz

The suggestion is made that there should be a boomerang action against the OP, but what action? The OP is blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring, but 48 hours is not a long time. The OP, above, is grandiosely stating that they will not take part in any further discussion if their conditions are not met, and was continuing to rant anyway. But what is Icewhiz saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Can we just close this thread as a useless protest about a messed-up RFC and let the OP be dealt with in other forums? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 October 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 threat, COI edit

This edit removes sourced material. The edit summary states that libel charges will be filed if the content is reinstated. I haven't checked, but it's at least plausible that I inserted the statement originally, so I'd like to recuse myself here. I'd like someone else to check if the citation meets WP:RS, if the citation really cites the material, and, if but only if it is appropriate, reinstate the content. And in any case, warn the editor about WP:NLT. Furthermore, this editor has a conflict of interest, though because of WP:OUTING, I can't be more specific. Please note that I am not trying to imply the editor is the person discussed in the removed text, only that the editor has an undisclosed conflict of interest. --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this person resigned after writing social media posts described as anti-Islamic is covered in several Canadian soures, such as the Edmonton Journal, the Edmonton Sun , and so on. TheValeyard (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat. WP:DOLT analysis indicates that the content removed was neutrally worded and supported by high-quality sources, so at least does not appear to violate WP:BLP. There may be a WP:WEIGHT question, but I think that's murky enough that the article passes BLP. This should draw a block, whether for NLT or for disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Cathry and casting aspersions

Closing because already resolved in subthread below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I recently blocked User:Cathry for one week for edit-warring and spreading fringe theories without reliable sources. She had two unblock requests declined. She is obviously unhappy, and casts aspersions that I was off-wiki approached by someone from the Russian Wikipedia (where, as far as I can see, she is indefblocked) and asked to block her account (see e.g. [358]). In fact, I was not approached by anybody, I blocked her on the basis of my own judgement, and for ten years which I am around I always consistently defended transparency in the decision making. Therefore I consider this a personal attack, though I understand that some users may view it differently (and even call it childish, as it recently happened on a different occasion). Would an administrator be willing to have a look please? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Good block in my opinion, definite WP:FRINGE territory here. Also, the IP commenting on the page has my curiosity up, might this be some logged out editing? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the edit warring block but not so much that I would suggest overturning it. She certainly earned the extended block with her talk page activity. I've just closed two SPIs that were opened related to this, and I think it's pretty clear that the user spewing Russian all over their talk page is not the same well-Englished user as the Australian IP(s). However, IP's already received an NPA block and is dancing very close to earning a longer one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like original block was fine. But if the extension was for block evasion as the 120.17.83.90 IP why is the extension still in place when the SPI showed they are not the same person? PackMecEng (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was imposed by @WJBscribe: per WP:DUCK. Indeed, shit happens, and it looks now, when they both had a chance for a long rant, that the IP is different from the user. Still, I maintain that I had no communication with anybody on the Russian Wikipedia (or, in fact, with anybody at all) contrary to what the user says.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe:, I would support an undoing of the block extension. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that the IP has a much better command of English than Cathry has. I've no doubt that the IP is a sockpuppet of some editor, but I rather doubt that it's Cathry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Happy to defer to you on this one - no objection from me to undoing the extension if review and consideration of fuller evidence suggests my instincts were mistaken. WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually since we are discussing this block, in my view this user is entirely disruptive and time-sucking when they edit about health, and I would like to propose that they be TBANed from health content.
  • I was unaware of their activity at ru-WP until they brought it up just now. Looking there, here is their block log. It is no wonder they are now indeffed there. This person does not play well with others.
  • Looking at their block log here in en-WP, they were blocked in february for edit warring. I brought that case here for edit warring bad content into the Herbalism article against four other editors
  • Looking at User_talk:Cathry/Archive_1, you see warning after warning for bad editing on content about health. The articles where they were disruptive include Herbalism, Phytochemical, Squalene (the main phyto-chemical in shark liver oil and also present in olive oil), Banana, Green tea.
  • That is big picture stuff. See:
    • Talk:Herbalism/Archive 3#Explicit_reference_to_herbalism a huge time suck related to the February edit warring case.
    • What led to their current block is their editing at Rheumatoid arthritis in support of the rather rabid IP who says they are from Australia who piped up on Cathry's talk page. What is going on with the IP, is that they are committed to the The Truth that Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG, the phyto-chemical people focus on when they talk about health benefits of green tea) is a Wonder Drug Suppressed By The Pharmaceutical Industry. (If you have a look at the talk page of Talk:Epigallocatechin gallate you will see why I was about to bring an AE case against the IP for battering the hell out of that talk page) What Cathry did, was jump in to "help" the IP:
    • diff and edit-warring restored here adding this half-garble and scare quotes.
    • jumping to the arthritis article and adding this content promoting EGCG/green tea
    • further back here was their edit to Squalene, adding a bunch of hype about this phytochemical with an edit note it is satisfies MEDRS and NPOV while they are actually adding primary sources along with some good ones.

This is what they do when they edit about health - I just groan when I see their name pop up on my watch list, as it is inevitably more hyping of the appeal to nature for health claims with marketing content like what comes from dietary supplement marketers, citing primary sources and pushing reviews farther than they go. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, with respect to health. And their combative unblock requests and agreement with the IP on the pharma shill conspiracy theory just shows that more. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a topic ban is sufficient? After looking over their talk page, I'd be inclined to support an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, the IP is not Cathry. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: Yes, I know, I said as much up thread, so my inclination to support an indef block has nothing to do with their supposed socking. I simply don't think that the editor has anything positive to offer Wikipedia, and is a net negative. I see no reason to allow them to continue to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That is true, Drmies, but stuff from Cathry like this and this (you will have to use your friend google translate) and this and this in response to Ymblanter are just personalizing and icky. And here they said "thank you" in response to our IP's screeds (an exact continuation of what we've been putting up with at the EGCG article). And Cathry thanked the IP and spun more conspiracy theorizing here. And here Cathry writes: In fact, I'm already tired of fighting your bureaucracy. ...Anyway, paid participants can jump - I have no desire to edit here anymore. No one interferes in their whitewashing and destroying of content. which is just repeating the pharma shill gambit in the face of their poor quality phytochemical-hyping edits getting rejected consistently.

Cathry did dig themselves a hole at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I just came upon this. Although I agree that the IP is clearly a different user, I'm also inclined to agree with the comments about Cathry being a net negative here. I've been having some pretty unpleasant interactions with Cathry at GMO pages – where there are DS in place from the ArbCom GMO case. When they recently showed up at Talk:Genetically modified organism, I tried very hard to be friendly to them: [359], [360]. But shortly later, at Talk:Glyphosate, they became very IDHT and battlegroundy: [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366], [367]. Please note in particular the personalization of the discussion and the resistance to engaging with what I actually said, leading in the last diff to the mocking repetition of what I had said earlier. Take that with their own user talkpage comments noted above, and I'm seeing a lot of NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have to agree some admins commenting that an indef is likely for NOTHERE, it's just a question of when. Some of the edits drift into GMOs, others are more on health topics. A health topic ban could be an immediate next step, but this looks like a SageRad-like case where it might save the community and Cathry grief by indeffing sooner than later due to advocacy and battleground mentality. It does look like the IP block was a mix-up though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A distinction that I would make is that SageRad was an intelligent and self-aware editor who just did not accept how Wikipedia does things, whereas Cathry (even when one allows for language issues) appears to be much less competent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A large part of Cathry's most-edited pages are Ukraine-related articles. Is there any evidence that they have been disruptive in this area? If not, with only 2 blocks in their history, a subject-area restriction seems more appropriate than an indef block.Dialectric (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be OK with a restriction like that, but it would have to be awfully broad. I'm not sure than an Ukraine is allowed but everything else is off-limits ban would be workable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This demonstrates she can not edit Ukrainian topics either.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely correct. I think we should seriously consider a site-ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So she mostly writes about Ukraine, while the two users who came here to call for her block on English Wikipedia, happen to both be Russian Wikipedia admins? Seems highly coincidental. I suspect it may be challenging to maintain a NPOV, given how contentious Ukrainian/Russian politics are? There's a few ongoing issues here. Like false claims in the previous block request by one of the admins, stating he created a talk section against her, when it was created by a 3rd party to contest the admin's own edits (who ignored Talk). Ongoing attributions of the IP user's edits, already proven not to be Cathry. I could go on long, but even many of the links above don't hold up under scrutiny. 120.17.143.20 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any Russian Wikipedia admins in this thread. Conspiracy theories are exciting, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No relation to you either I suppose? [368] 120.17.117.112 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you want to communicate by showing my Meta-hosted generic page which shows up in all the projects where I do not maintain a user page. For a starter, this is my contribution on the Russian Wikipedia: [369]. It is trivial to check that I am not admin there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And yet you write strategy documents for Russian Wikivoyage, deeply involved in Russian language and culture outreach promotion and intervene in discussions against Ukrainians opposing a proposal for WMF to effectively market visiting Russia, by use of banner for your Russian project displayed to users in Ukraine. A responsible admin would recognise such conflicts of interest and recuse himself from such user ban decisions, much less initiate them and pretend it's about Health topic matters. Given the amount of time you invested on Russian work, it looks more like paid editing too. FSB perhaps, or just cosying? 120.17.117.112 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP is ready for a block. Anybody?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this is an IP hopper. May be a range block? I do not think allegations of paid editing without any proof should go unblockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

IP: if you are going to make accusations against editors (such as accusing Ymblanter of "interven(ing) in discussions against Ukrainians opposing a proposal for WMF to effectively market visiting Russia because of their Russian-related background" - I'm presumaing that's what you meant by "Russian Wikipedia admins") you are going to have to prove them - that's the way Wikipedia works. Ymblanter: I'd suggest that any block would need to be made by an uninvolved admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite: I am quite familiar with WP:INVOLVED, and I do not quite see how it applies to me in this situation. I am not going to block the IP and ask other administrators to do it. Concerning Cathry, if the IP, rather than throwing random allegations around (that I am paid by FSB is a particularly nice one) would straight check the facts, they would immediately find that I had zero overlap with Cathry in the Russian Wikipedia. She registered an account there one year after I stopped editing. I do not see how I am involved in any way concerning her block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm on an unreliable connection and lost the page. It's 2am here and Googling "Ymblanter Ukraine political Russia" yields FAR too many results on him. COI wasn't declared here and neither was his role as Russian Wikivoyager strategist when he called for action against Ukrainian editors warning that such promotion would unduly politicise WMF in the Ukraine. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is fucking bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

One example from many: [370]. Also, language unfit to be an admin. Request he be banned for NPA. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If can't even show decorum and WP:CIVILITY on an ANI page, then User:Ymblanter is seriously unfit to be an Administrator. Immediate ban seems appropriate. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even know the entire history of Cathryn & Ymblanter. But I know there's politics involved. I did however see what happened at EGCG & RA pages (between Zefr, Jytdog & Ymblanter) and certainly wasn't impressed. Still waiting for an answer at Talk:Rheumatoid Arthritis on how 3 secondary reviews are somehow primary source. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to show proof of your allegations, instead you double down with more allegations and no evidence bar a few diffs which show nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, on the RA page, your main point appears to be accusing two long-term editors of being sockpuppets because they agree with each other, and disagree with you. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that block. The actions of the IP editor have become a distraction from the primary issue here, and I think that we should now get back to the original question of Cathry's editing. The response posted just below is not giving me any confidence, because it simply continues the conspiracy theorizing about Ymblanter, and the self-unaware defense of the editing patterns that I and other editors have raised above (note, for example, the comments below about glyphosate, after the evidence that I posted above). I'm getting very close to making a formal proposal for a site-ban, but I'll allow just a little more time for editor input first. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I obviously support the site ban as well. I do not see any way to communicate to conspiracy theorists.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Cathry

I think that I have reason to believe that Ymblanter was off-wiki approached by someone from the Russian Wikipedia and asked to block my account. Ymblanter claims I did "edit-warring and spreading fringe theories without reliable sources". In fact over the past 2 weeks my "fringe" edits in articles were:

-add info about glyphosate toxicity with ref to review in "Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity".

- return with editing info about neonicotinoid toxicity reference - Bulletin of Insectology

- add info about flaws in gm-food safety research reference to José L. Domingo Food and Chemical Toxicology

- return info deleted by Kingofaces43 and added previously by Gandydancer about lawsuit against Monsanto, and company's mails, and so on. refs to reliable media.

- return info about possible causes of Rheumatoid arthritis deleted by Zefr. refs to Mucosal Immunology (journal) and other reliable journals

- return info about Epigallocatechin gallate research deleted by Zefr. refs to review in Mediators of Inflammation and other reliable journals.

All these mine edits were reverted, after that I did not return any edit. So it is obviously false claim about "edit warring and fringe theories". Nevertheless, i recieved similar accusation by Grebenkov admin in Russian wikipedia in similar issue. I used same reliable sources there, for examble José L. Domingo review. And I know, that Ymblanter was once administrator there as Yaroslav Blanter. Talk page there. Also I know, that there are skype conferences where admininstrators communicate and decide to block someone (even if it is against the rules). It is worth noting there was claim to arbitration about this issue and Ymblanter (Yaroslav Blanter then) acted as arbitrator, although according to some claims he once took part in that skype conference. One of active skype conference participant was administrator Grebenkov. The arbitration decision was very loyal to the chat participants.

Week ago, I didn't remember my collision with Ymblanter here. But recently i realised, that as early as in 2014 he already hostilely commented on my edits here and dreamed about my block. And in 2015 he confessed he watched my edits in Russian wikipedia. So I think it is not very conspiratorially to suppose he communicate with someone from Russian wikipedia or he has a particularly hostile attitude towards me. Cathry (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As for my edits related to health content described as "disruptive" by Jytdog. One notable example is Banana article. Zefr persistently rebuilt claim that " A compilation of potassium content in common foods consumed in the United States shows that raw bananas rank 1,611th" One can follow link to USDA base and find that it is really 1611, but after such "food" as fennel seed, cocoa powder, leaveninig low-sodium agents, spices and so on. Does somebody eat 100 g of fennel seed or leavening low-sodim agents per meal and can get significant amount of potassium from it? I think no, also Wikiloop think no, and now this dubious claim is absent in Banana article. And it is so disruptive according to Jytdog. Cathry (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was not approached by anyone from Russian Wikipedia (or anyone else, for that matter) and asked to block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet above, you claimed you were not a Russian Wikipedia administrator and tried to claim your contributions to ru-wiki were merely as Ymblanter, [Special:MobileDiff/804363635], whereas in fact you had been contributing under your alt account [371], intentionally misleading ANI. I'll hold off calling it sockpuppetry, because the RU acct was deleted (maybe to try covering tracks?). Perhaps your profanity here, calling "fucking bullshit" was in response to your being found out misleading ANI? Note, in a common tactic, I was blocked above before given opportunity to continue providing evidence of the Russian wiki involvement. My unblock request, was then filed as "evading block" with a 400% time extension, for the sole fact I'm stuck on dynamic IP (with millions of other users) to make the unblock request. A fact completely outside my control, yet a great tactic for exploitation by wikilawyers to deny fair hearings, even though my Talk page to seek appeal would not have been blocked, so not evading. Allbeit, signing off. 120.18.92.91 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to remark that (i) the above is block evasion; (ii) most comments about me in this topic, well, represent BLP violations and, according to WMF policy, need to be revision deleted - I am still a living person, and my real name was already mentioned here.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your own first entry as Ymblanter linked to the real name account and confirmed your identity, so I don't know why you're seeking suppression retroactively, of something you'd made public then, apart from to cover your deception of ANI here. 120.18.129.246 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion again. I am not necessarily seeking suppression, this is up to an uninvolved administrator to decide, but merely removing from this page all this bullshit allegations about me written from a bunch of Australian IPs and range-block of the IP would be already a good step forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As for my edits at Glyphosate talk page described as "battlegroundy" by Tryptofish. Now, there is statement in Glyphosate article "In 2008, USDA-ARS scientist Stephen O. Duke and Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert — described glyphosate as a "virtually ideal" herbicide" This claim about "ideal herbicide" referenced with this article. It is obvious they called it ideal because they think "it is very toxicologically and environmentally safe". So it is obvious it is MEDRS related claim. But it was in 2008, and in 2017 one ot this scientists (Duke) says quite another thing. Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 want outdated 2008 statement to stay in article forever. And they state it is not MEDRS-related but only "opinion". And when it comes to a recent review which calls glyphosate endorine disruptor it is bad only because it is "narrative" review. Any objection to this is declared "battlegroundy" Cathry (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I just want to put a note here to indicate that I have read Cathry's comment to me. I also think that a read of Talk:Glyphosate will make very clear what is in fact going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that you are not a neutral or uninvolved participant. It's quite unreasonable to be acting as victim, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. On procedural grounds, there is no way you should be passing motions against Cathry, while you're involved in a disagreement with her yourself. Besides, Glyphosate genotoxity and probable carcinogenicity is hardly a "fringe conspiracy". It is in fact the official position of the World Health Organization. . Her only 'crime' has been holding a position than aligns with experts and holding a different opinion to someone who happens to also be a WP administrator. That's not "battlegroundy". All that's going on here is abuse of power and process. 120.18.96.198 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And that is block evasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Could somebody point out to Cathry that you need three sources about a scientific theory for it to be a legal article?TomBarker23 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@TomBarker23: There is no such thing as a "legal article". Articles here must meet content guidelines such as WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:GNG (or a more specific notability guideline). -- Dane ^talk 03:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Proposal for site ban

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.

---

After what I think has been sufficient discussion, I formally propose a community site ban for User:Cathry. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I think that the discussion above has amply demonstrated that the user is a net negative and severe time-sink across multiple editing areas, and that they have simply doubled-down in response to the issues raised, instead of responding constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I think quite opposite, you together with Kingofaces43, Zefr, Jytdog etc are destroying articles Cathry (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I normally do not support site bans, and initially I was not thinking the situation would so quickly escalate to a site ban, but given she is apparently unable to make a distinction between reliable sources and conspiracy theories, I do not see any other choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  You simply lie and did not give a single argument about sources I use. Cathry (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I did not lie and, in fact, I never lie. You just made it up, and, as such, you have no place on this project. Take your battleground mentality and conspiracy theories elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I would watch you said face to face with Domingo, that he adherent of conspiracy theory Cathry (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support The response above sums it up perfectly. The user treats Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I understand that you dream that I was silent in response to rudeness and false accusations Cathry (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Do NOT support". None of the points in Cathry's response have been addressed at all, or even properly replied to (apart from by someone who's deceived ANI, as evidenced above). Furthermore, the person who raised this ban motion is in fact a participant in the original matter, so the whole thing needs to be throw out on procedural grounds. 120.18.96.198 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for evading a still current block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• support their behavior here has made it clear that a ban broader than the one I proposed is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the unsubstantiated accusations and "it's all them" in response to the bannproposal are enough for me. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely fails WP:BMB. No other remedies have been tried. This is the first time they have even been reported to ANI. The most we should be talking about is a topic ban, or a block for from one to six months, or an indef with WP:STANDARDOFFER. The fact that the user is defensive, or getting defensive, or making accusations, or is trying to defend themselves, is immaterial to the overarching principle that we allow editors to rehabilitate themselves over time (or after a block of some length), and to learn the ways of English Wikipedia, and to learn to edit productively. This leap to site-ban has no basis in process and protocol, and seems to be railroading. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE even based on comments here, and they've been given enough rope with previous warnings and blocks already. There already appeared to be a consensus for this in the original conversation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support and support banning the IP as well. Editors who get so into their own beliefs that they think a conspiracy of Russian administrators conferring in secret teleconferences and planning out how to keep you from sharing the important truths that only you know is more plausible than the reality that your sources are garbage don't belong on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support even while this discussion has been going, they've been posting [372] and reposting [373] unhelpful aspersions/personal attacks about other editors. That's not promising. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to follow up further on what Geogene posted. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions, ArbCom made a specific finding that "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes" are impermissible, and enacted Discretionary Sanctions to that effect. Cathry was properly informed of those decisions: [374], and subsequently warned during a block about personal attacks: [375]. That is plenty of prior notice, before this ANI, so the claims to the contrary are untrue. Cathry returned from the block, and completely apart from any self-defense here at ANI, did this today: [376], [377], [378]. That's plenty sufficient for a WP:AE block, but I would hope that the community could deal with it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Softlavender above. prokaryotes (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose per User:Softlavender. A topic ban and a reasonably short block should be at least tried before going nuclear.Jacona (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Strike my original content, based on misconception of past sanctions. Jacona (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been a 2014 ANI post, from the editor complaining about someone predicting he will get blocked, and two more recent short blocks (it seems without ANI involved), not sure why. prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note. There have been a few comments about this being the "first" time this user has faced sanctions. Unfortunately, that is not factually based. Here is a link to the block log: [379], showing a prior history of blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Softlavender. Jusdafax 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Even though it's based on something that is not true. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. My limited interaction with Cathry at Talk:Genetically modified organism, although not incivil, did not lead me to believe that Cathry has any intent to follow policy (especially neutrality) with the other evidence put forward, or to be a polite, productive member of the community. With previous blocks and warnings given to Cathry—including user warnings on their talk page as early as May 2014—why are we to believe that their actions will change for the better after a more lengthy ban (following two short-term bans this year)? What sort of topic ban would anyone suggest that could possibly suffice? – Rhinopias (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban or indef block + heavy topic ban (perhaps with the TBAN as a requisite condition to unblock, rather than as a concurrent sanction). It's simply not the case that Cathry has never been in trouble before over their disruptive edits stretching back, apparently, years, meaning that Softlavender's oppose !vote (and consequently all three subsequent oppose !votes) are based on incorrect premises. Pushing fringe theories in articles in that general field is a serious problem, and should be dealt with in one form or another. This means that Softlavender, and all subsequent oppose !votes, are not being helpful by recognizing that disruption is taking place, but blank-opposing with a concrete alternative solution. Had they said outright "Indef block with possibility of STANDARDOFFER" that would be one thing, but they didn't -- Softlavender said that that is the most Cathry should face, with another alternative option presumably being a slap on the wrist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment In the response above Cathry argues based on reliable sources, with good arguments. Most of the users who vote for a site-ban here are the very active editors engaged in content disputes with Cathry. Her defense here is sincere based on RS and shouldn't be used to justify a community ban. In regards to her previous short term blocks, those doesn't seem to be related with ANI, as Softlavender pointed out. prokaryotes (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  How is her repeated accusation of me that I was off-wiki asked by someone to block her is based on reliable sources? Despite the fact that I repeatedly said nobody asked me to block her.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I was solely commenting on the reliable sources she cited in regards to content disputes. Initially it appears she was wrongly accused of socketing, and this should be weighted in her favor. As for the russian story, it seems to suggest it lacks proof (did not read the russian references). prokaryotes (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not repeat accusation, Ymblanter. I explained why I think so. There must be a reason, why do you falsely accuse me of edit-warring and "spreading fringe theories without sources" although I use reliable non-fringe sources and did not return my edits Cathry (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We have very recent edit-warring at Talk:Glyphosate; you were edit-warring before I blocked you, for example, at Genetically modified crops and Genetically modified food. May be in your words, "did not return my edits" means "I never reverted more than once", but by stand definition, one revert in multiple articles is edit-warring. Concerning reliable sources, it was already said enough how reliable your sources are.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not say nothing about reliability. Why do you consider these sources non-reliable and fringe? As for edit-warring, indeed in two articles I returned my change, which was consensus text from GMO article (it was joyfully deleted only after my block and was there more than a year ). Still it did not go beyond 1RR. Cathry (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, indeed, I see that you are pretty careless with sources and can not say what is reliable and what is not (examples:[380][381]), and while you clearly state that you think your opponents are paid editors, I do not see immediate fringe contributions in you recent (October and end of September) edits in the articles (whereas your opponents apparently see them, but I leave it to them to comment). I apologize for stating an imprecise reason for your block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is amusing. You apologize for false accusation and immediately bring another false accusation. About Neo-Nazism article, I reverted huge deletion which was performed by Claíomh Solais without consensus, these were not my adding, so I can not guarantee reliability of every source, though I saw that edit was disruptive and against talk page discussion. About Roman Shukhevych, how he is not Nazi collaborator, when he commanded Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 and Nachtigall Battalion, and began voluntary training in the Abwehr in 1940 when he was citizen of Poland occupied by Nazis? Cathry (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel at this point I should stop responding to you. It is pretty much clear that you have difficulties understanding multiple basic policies of Wikipedia. Even if the site ban proposal fails, you will back here in no time, if you continue editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty much clear you have nothing to say. Personally I did not see in Wikipedia policies something like "Wikipedia encourages the whitewashing of fascists and multinational corporations" Cathry (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Joyfully deleted"? That assertion needs to rebutted from the world where facts actually count for more than conspiracy theories. Prior to that edit, right after Cathry had been blocked, I actually posted a note suggesting that the paragraph should not be deleted just because they had been blocked: [382]. I didn't have to do that, but I went out of my way to give Cathry a fair chance. My comment was met with numerous responses by other editors, who found legitimate fault with the content, and I then accepted that consensus. "Joy" had nothing to do with that. Of course, I have no confidence that Cathry will believe that I did it for those reasons, because of the very clear statement at Talk:Glyphosate that I am a "pro-industry" editor being paid by Monsanto, who engaged in a remarkably complex scheme of "good cop, bad cop" when I argued at length in favor of content that was critical of the company: [383]. I don't make proposals for site bans carelessly. Of course, the standard offer applies, and there are appeal mechanisms in place. But a supposed "second chance" at this step would be nothing more than subjecting to community to ongoing disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you ever add negative findings to related article space? prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sure did: [384]. And you are skating awfully close to violating your topic ban from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

And it was also you, who proposed to delete place for these negative findings. Cathry (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There was proposition by Aircorn to wait for me. Total time for discussion was 2 hours. But you did not wait for me or other editor and quickly went and removed info. Bursting into tears, of course Cathry (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - An all-out site ban is the worst possible solution as Softlavender has said with it failing WP:BMB. A topic ban is all that is necessary. It is unfair to immediately go to site ban when this is the first time it was reported to ANI. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  This is at least the second time she is featured at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  I see. However, if it's the second time, it still probably shouldn't be the case in my opinion for the points Softlavender has already raised. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Limited blocks and topic/interaction bans should have been tried first before this was proposed. This level of response should only be used once other options have been exhausted. --Jayron32 11:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, while the points that Softlavender are valid, the premise has been proven to be untrue. We could let this user return, and then see how it goes, by initiating a long but temporary block. However, the WP:STANDARDOFFER is open to anyone, and thanks to this, I support a site ban, of which she can obviously appeal, and show us her worthiness with that standard offer. In fact, I completely encourage Cathry to use those 6 months wisely, with the premise of the ban being placed on that. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 12:31, 11 October 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.