Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976

Darwinek and BLPs

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

---

This user, who is also an admin, does not seem to think there's an issue with adding unsourced content to BLP articles. I've brought this to their attention twice before (Dec, Jan). However, they continue to add unsourced information to BLP articles such as this, this and this edit. I thought it was pretty clear that anything added to a BLP MUST be sourced, no matter how small a detail? I'd be grateful if someone could take it up with this editor, as I've tried, but they chose not to listen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Generally, yes - you do want to reference content like the addition of birthdays and birth places to a reliable source in BLP's - for sure. It may not have to be cited exactly right there and next to that exact content if the reference is repeatedly cited in multiple locations and places within the article, but you should have a reference provided in the article and cited somewhere that verifies content being added. Reading through a BLP and verifying that content is supported by a reference somewhere on the page is a common task for editors to perform. It's absolutely reasonable for an editor to ask for a reference to be pointed out or provided to verify any BLP content, and to remove that content from the article until one is provided. WP:BURDEN is the exact policy to invoke here, in that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Having clarified and paraphrased how that works here, are you sure that Darwinek has been adding content to BLPs that's completely referenced to a reliable source from the article at all? Is it possible that it was already cited or referenced on the article somewhere else and a ref link just wasn't placed right next to the content in question? I'm just wondering if this might be a simple case of confusion with "when to reference" vs "when to cite and link" :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - Darwinek is simply adding unreferenced info to BLPs. This was the original version of one of the latest articles in question. The one source to the 2018 Winter Olympic page makes no reference to her hometown that Darwinek added here. I removed it, only for moments latter for Darwinek to source it. At best this is lazy, and at worst, it's disruptive. But that's what he's been doing for some time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP says all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; Is Groningen as the birthplace really likely to be challenged? I am not really surprised that Lugnuts is not familiar with our policies but still aggressively pushes his vision.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with Lugnuts. Editors should not be adding unsourced biographical data to BLPs just because it might be verifiable. Birthplaces, DOBs, and other similar information should be sourced with the addition/change. For an admin not to do this is surprising and not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Whereas I fully agree that this is a best practice to reference all the data which we have in BLPs, I do not see how it is absolutely necessary to immediately reference the PoB in a BLP which will clearly we worked on further in the same days, which is not controversial, and which certainly will be references (all Olympic athletes quickly get links to their sports federations which provide the bios). And all of this on a scale of two hours. If it does not get references in say in a week, and the user clearly ignores the request, it might become a ANI case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 as I stated in my initial response above - biological data such as a BLP's birthdate and age, weight, height, legal name, relatives, etc - are absolutely things I'd expect to be referenced to a reliable source from the BLP article, and I would expect to be talked to or messaged if I were to add such content to a BLP and without providing one if none exists - that feels like common sense to me taking into account our BLP policy and how strictly we scrutinize such articles. If someone challenges the addition of such content to them (as what's clearly been happening here), then one must be provided. It's acceptable (and somewhat expected) for editors to make mistakes - things happen and nobody's perfect. But making the same mistake repeatedly and over a period of time? - and especially given the user's tenure, user rights, and the repeated messages and concerns expressed? That does cause me a little bit of concerns as well (as Bbb23 stated above)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

But the period of time is two hours, right? I think things would look differently if this is a recurring pattern. And, again, in BLPs of Olympians all these things together are typically referenced to just one page, which is always added pretty soon after the creation of an article. Two hours might be just a part of the workflow - adding PoB first and the link second, or smth like this. WP:BLP allows for this workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Ymblanter - it is a small period of time to grow concerns over, but I just feel that such references should be provided from the get-go when you add this stuff in the first place. Surely, you ("you", meaning the editor in general) pulled the information from somewhere, right? So reference it :-). But yes, I should clarify that when I say that I'm "concerned", I'm saying that what seems to be occurring here is bad practice that I generally wouldn't do :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree this is the best practice, and I in any case try to reference such things if not always in the same edit then at least immediately afterwards. However, we are talking about editing articles which are likely to be heavily edited (Olympic athletes at the day of competition). It is not always easy (and not always a good idea) to do everything in one edit due to heavy conflicts. Anyway, what I am really concerned with is that Darwinek so far did not respond here explaining their vision of the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I too would like to hear from Darwinek and for him to respond here with his side of the issues and concerns - it would help so that I can weigh both inputs here and offer help so that this can be resolved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Good afternoon everyone. I completely agree that sources have to be added to BLPs, as this is one of our standard WP policies. As you can see from my edit history, I am lately making dozens to hundreds small edits per day. Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace. It is not an excuse though, and I agree I should be adding it to any article on BLP, whenever new content is added. On a side note though, I am afraid that I am being singled out by User:Lugnuts as the articles he is referring to were created by him. Last month I had a discussion with him and emphasized that WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:AGF are our core policies as well. - Darwinek (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Sounds like a reasonable resolution to me - Darwinek understands the concerns and says that he'll take note and make sure that he includes the references alongside the content he adds piece-by-piece. As far as the concerns regarding Lugnuts: I'll address that in the closing statement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace" - I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. I just forget? Even after being told about it on multiple occasions? I'm pretty sure if you weren't an admin, you would have been blocked for at least a 24hr period for this before now, as I've seen that happen to other editors. I have a feeling we'll be back here in the future to discuss this issue with Darwinek again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not have blocked anyone for 24 hours in this ANI situation, and Darwinek's user rights make absolutely no difference to me. If he was being a prick to someone, I'd block him just like I'd block anyone else for doing the same... and I expect that any admin would do the same for me - and not give me any special treatment simply because I have a mop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The place of birth could very well be challenged - I'm surprised Ymblanter has to ask this. Although he too thinks unsourced BLPs are OK. It fails WP:V. What's even more puzzling is that Darwinek CAN source BLPs in the same vein, as they did so yesterday! As I've said, this has been raised with the user before, but has dismissed it, hence why I've brought it here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Great that you found my edit which you were happy to bring to ANI and demonstrate that I am an idiot, but I put {{inuse}} in the article in the very same edit and continued edited it - if I would not suffer from an edit conflict, it would be sourced a minute later by me. I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, let's not make rebuttals and return-arguments by waving diffs at Ymblanter and questioning his edits, please. Let's keep this ANI on-topic and discuss the concerns at-hand, which is what you stated in your initial statement :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do, Oshwah. I should not have reacted to Ymblanter's personal attack, above. I'd really like to hear from Darwinek now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Cool deal :-). I'm not trying to wave fingers or say "stop it - it's your fault or anything" - I just want to make sure that we stay on track and that we don't let things get this ANI discussion off on a wild or ridiculous tangent. We've both seen all-too-often how ANI discussions can completely blow up and turn into a poop-throwing war when people start smearing one another with personal pinches and prods in their replies ;-). That goes for you too, Mister! :-P

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.

GLAM / WIR / COI

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 been talking to Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and Jytdog about their ongoing battle. I need some help to stop this ending up at ArbCom.

Consider for example this edit: [1] - this refers to [2] as a declaration of WP:PAID.

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between long-standing, prolific and committed editors over whether a Wikipedian-in-residence is legitimately a WP:PAID COI in respect of individual articles related to a WIR engagement. Andy finds this tagging deeply offensive, not without reason, but I can also see Jytdog's point since it's arguably correct especially if one applies a literal reading. Actually I think the correct position is "neither of the above" but it is certainly not clear. Jytdog thinks he's protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, Andy thinks it's an outrageous personal attack that impugns his own integrity, and as an outsider who likes both of them I can see the merit in both views. In both cases we are talking about one of the things that defines them as Wikipedians. Jytdog watches COI, especially paid editing, and Andy works in real-world community outreach and as WiR. For both of them, this goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is to them.

My concern is that if we can't find a way of sorting this out it will end up at ArbCom, and not only will the committee not be able to fix the root problem (because questions of community consensus and guidance like this are out of their scope), they will also probably end up spanking a couple of prolific and dedicated editors due to the behaviour issues around the dispute. I don't think that is a good outcome. Both have previously been criticised by ArbCom for broadly similar conduct, and it seems to me not unlikely that both would be subject to some pretty harsh restrictions, possibly even bans, and in my view that would be bad.

The community is clearly ambivalent about paid editing, some people consider it an absolute evil, and there is no real consensus on the blurred line between paid editing and Wikipedian in residence, especially when the programme involves non-profit and educational institutions. Would a WiR at a cancer research charity, for example, have a WP:PAID COI when using the charity's research materials to add sources to articles? Does a WiR at a museum have such a COI when using materials from the private collections to update articles? Should there be some kind of WiR ombudsman to settle things? I think we need some clarity, and this fight is inevitable fallout from that lack of clarity. I do wonder if we should also be asking the Foundation to provide better governance oversight of this activity. Let's not pretend it has always gone well.

I have an idea of how to start, but I need to know if it's a good idea and I will need help implementing it if so.

1. A one month two-way interaction ban between Jytdog and Pigsonthewing, obviously
2. A one month topic ban of both from WT:COI/WP:PAID and related pages, save for a single statement laying out their case in neutral terms (i.e. not including pointy fingers) in the context of...
3. A centralised discussion to clarify consensus on the representation of COI/PAID/whatever in WIR and GLAM engagement, and to explore possibilities for independent oversight to address legitimate concerns over conflicts between these activities and Wikipedia's mission.

Does this sound like a good idea? Or should I just give up and leave it to escalate to the point of blocks and bans? I'd advise involved parties not to comment at this point unless asked for a short explanation of specific points, per the law of holes. I am looking for input from uninvolved admins and experienced DR people please. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved discussion

Clarify: Do professional editors have to disclose they're professional editors? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to "professional" editors like editors who edit as their profession / to make a living? Or professionals in employment who happen to also edit Wikiepdia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors who may be getting paid to edit articles of interest, by their employer(s). GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a sort of hierarchy. Employees of a company are not "paid editors" in the sense we'd understand it, but they have a COI. PR companies paid to buff up an article, they are paid editors, obviously, and the same would apply to people in a company paid to edit Wikipedia specifically. But Wikipedians-in-residence? That's much harder. They are usually Wikipedians first, placed in an organisation through a semi-official collaboration. It is not at all obvious how that should e treated. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As a trustee of WMUK, I am acutely aware of the importance not only of avoiding COI, but of avoiding even the appearance of COI. Nevertheless, having been involved in the creation and review of several Wikimedian-in-Residence posts, I have to say that it is incredibly rare for a WiR to be asked to edit a specific article. Most often, their work will involve training uninvolved editors to edit articles (often related to the topic area of the employing institute), and in organising and making available on a Wikipedia-compatible basis the resources of the organisation. There really is no COI there, and it's a mistake to view WiRs as different from any other editor who works for a living. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I can believe this. The most baffling thing for me is that while Andy feels his integrity is being questioned and lies are being told, as far as I can see, there is no intent to do that. We need some kind of ombudsman or honest broker to handle this, because there are well-founded questions over what in-residence programmes actually mean in terms of edits and subjects. Most of this could be cleared up over a Wikipint, IMO, but it needs a calm, neutral venue for discussing it. Calm and neutral. Exactly what ANI is not... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel those things; I have evidence of them; some of which I have already provided to you; and on various relevant talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh Andy, you really are making this hard. No you don't have evidence for those claims. You have evidence for the things that happened, and you have a perspective on how they look to you, and that perspective is legitimate, but, crucially, other interpretations are also legitimate, and reasonable people can and will differ. Do you really not see this at all? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You make allegations about me, and then criticise me for refuting them. Here is Jytdog brazenly stating that I was paid on behalf of an article subject; a complete and utter lie (as evidenced by the fact Jytdog removed the claim when challenged). That is evidence which I had already presented to you off-wiki. And here is Jytdog smearing me as "a serial WiR who continually adds promotional content about the organizations paying you". That's not a "legitimate interpretation"; it is a complete and utter falsehood, presented as an assertion of fact. With no evidence. But with intent. You owe me an apology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, POTW, listen to what Guy is telling you and learn to pick your battles. I agree that Jytdog is overreacting here, but finding you promoting your various employers is literally just a case of going to User:Pigsonthewing#Interests, picking an entry at random and looking for your name in the history. (This was the very first one I looked at; are you really denying I won't find similar results with the others?) ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I listened, And I heard Guy telling me I haven't been lied about or smeared. The four year old edit you cite was made in accordance with the then-current policies in Wikipedia; and added images, coordinates, citations, categories and, yes, external links to an existing stub. The article has since been edited by six uninvolved editors (not counting bots), none of whom have seen fit to remove any of the content I added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain several times, Andy, "smearing" implies deliberate attempts to impugn those you know do not deserve it and "lying" means deliberate and conscious falsehood. That is not the case here. Jytdog has a specific perspective. He has made some unquestionably intemperate statements based on that perspective. But he is not the only one with whom you are butting heads on this, and it is absolutely not as clear cut as you make out. Leave Jytdog alone and do not comment on him. He has said a thing you find grossly offensive, and pretty much everyone here understands why you od, and I doubt many of us disagree. Call it crass and you will have close to unanimous support. Call it lies and smears and you will get eyerolls so hard we will all be looking behind us. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't conflate that Jytdog meant well with whether how he went about meaning well was unfair and damaging to another editor. And if an editor has been dropped in a hole we can expect that editor to try and dig himself out especially on Wikipedia where reputations are made or lost in single cases. Jytdog admits he can be a fanatic about COI and one understands the impetus for that. But I'd suggest that doesn't excuse damaging another person's reputations as has happened here. I'm not sure what the answer is but maybe the beginning is clarification.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC))

Both Jytdog and Andy have previous, and you have previous with Jytdog. The admin community is not daft, we are capable of reading between lines, and we are certainly capable of distinguishing genuinely helpful commentary from that which serves to exact revenge for past disputes. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the terms of use, anyone who is paid to edit Wikipedia needs to disclose this. The WMF's official FAQ on paid editing disclosure includes GLAM and WIR paid editing as an example that needs to be disclosed, though only when explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 1:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The Wikipedia in Residence program seems like a very good thing to me, and we should be going out of our way to make involved editors feel welcome and appreciated. This is not exactly what I’ve been seeing here. Sure Pigsonthewing is probably overreacting. But if I’d been treated the way he has been, I’d be upset too. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been going on for over three weeks; pretty much every day, even when I was travelling overseas (for 12 hours, door-to-door, in order to volunteer for Wikidata; then reading on arrival that Jytdog wrote that I was "not doing anything useful"), so I hope any overreaction is forgivable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

In this ANI section which he himself opened, Jytdog said that he is "in the process of reviewing" Pigsonthewing's "extensive WiR/GLAM editing". However, this edit -- mentioned several times above -- indicates that Jytdog does not have the capability to carry out such a review accurately. Jytdog should not, therefore, carry out any such reviews. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, hence the proposed restrictions. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Involved discussion

The above shows - as I was explaining to you off-wiki while you were, unbeknown to me, writing it - that you have no grasp of the locus of the dispute between Jytdog and I, which is about the use of {{COI}} on articles where there is no discussion as to the supposed COI issue on the relevant talk page. You continued to insist that the core of the matter was GLAM editing, despite my telling you more than once that it is not (and despite his attempt to smear me as a conflicted paid editor in the link you give, which he retracted after being challenged, Jytdog has also said as much). Jytdog is simply attempting to use my involvement in GLAM work as a means to silence me in that unrelated dispute, as was plainly apparent - and refuted - in the ANI case which you recently closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point re the law of holes, Andy. Your downfall here will be the absolute refusal to accept any possibility of good faith on Jytdog's part. I think you are both doing your best, but I can't stop you if you want to point the car at the cliff and put your foot down. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion, Guy. I am fine with all three of your recommendations.

• The kinds of interactions I had yesterday with Pigsonthewing and RexxS, are not why I volunteer here. I unwatched the template:COI yesterday and already intended to avoid both of them (hence no opposition to your proposals 1 or 2). I did respond to a ping from a third party after I unwatched it; I should have stuck to my resolution and just ignored it.
• My perspective on how this developed and what is going on is here. I see now from the OP, that there is an additional layer of offense about the PAID tag and what that means to Pigsonthewing.
• My thoughts on GLAM are User:Jytdog#GLAM, but the bigger topic is for the proposed RfC which I support having.
• I try to be mindful of how the community thinks about COI and paid editing, and do what I can to help work on these issues and move consensus toward managing them appropriately. I am aware that I can be Javertish sometimes and that some people view me as a fanatic on these issues. My position is actually pretty grey and not black and white, but I do focus on these issues a lot.
• I also try to keep content issues separate from behavior issues when dealing with COI matters. One of things that got so messy with Pigsonthewing is that these two things overlapped, and I should have gotten out of them and disengaged with Pigsonthewings much sooner than I did. I apologize to everybody for that.

That's what I have to say here. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy for starting this discussion. I'm not sure this is the best venue, but perhaps there is value in flagging up these issues for administrators' attention, even if a specific remedy finally eludes us.

Let me say that although I am firmly opposed on principle to any editing for hire, I am in general agreement with Jytdog on the following points:

1. Editors who are doing a specific piece of paid editing work should disclose both on their user page and on the affected article that they are being paid to make those edits.
2. Editors ought to avoid directly editing an article about any organisation where they are employed, or have any other financial interest. Or at the very worst, they should restrict themselves to making absolutely uncontroversial edits (i.e. the sort that can be legitimately marked as 'minor').

My opinion differs from that of Jytdog on the following points:

1. Everybody who is employed has a COI with respect to their employer (including WiRs and GLAM employees), but they do not automatically have a COI concerning anything one step or more removed. For example:
   • An editor who works at the Royal Society of Chemistry has a COI concerning the RSC. In general, they do not have a COI concerning the BLP of the President of the RSC, and may well have access to the best sources to improve that article. However, if they are paid to specifically work on that article, then a COI exists and they should restrict themselves to the talk page.
   • An editor who works as a researcher at the University of Wessex Medical School has a COI concerning the University of Wessex. In general, they do not have a COI concerning research done at UoWMS by other researchers, nor do they have a COI concerning BLPs of eminent alumni (unless specifically paid to edit those particular articles).
2. Everybody who is employed, whose employer has an article, should consider noting their employment as a matter of courtesy to fellow editors. However, that should not override an editors right to privacy: it may not be possible to confirm one's employment in a small, locally-based company without outing oneself.
3. Everybody should be allowed to participate in the normal processes of creating and revising policies and guidelines. Conflicted editors must disclose, but that should not be a bar from participation, either by editing or debating. The community is mature enough to entertain opinions from everybody, and creating a "second class" of editors is a slippery slope we should not be going down. Even more importantly, an unfounded accusation of COI should never be an acceptable reason to disbar an innocent editor from participation. Misuse of such a potential loophole needs to be carefully prevented.
4. As a matter of principle, GLAM editors, WiRs and those employed in areas broadly related to our own mission should not be singled out as different from any other editor who has paid employment. They should not directly edit the article on their employer (barring minor edits), but should not continually have to defend their editing on other topics from baseless accusations of COI. Editors who make those sort of accusations should not be exempt from our policies on harassment and personal attacks.

I'd be happy to see Andy and Jytdog kept apart, preferably voluntarily or compulsorily if needed. I'd be more than pleased to see uninvolved administrators review the behaviour (and I include my own) at Template Talk:COI. I would also value uninvolved editors' views on whether it is acceptable for a third-party to "weaponise" {{Connected contributor}} and {{COI editnotice}} tags as was done at Talk:Joe Collier], considering that Andy was working as a WiR at History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, and used their resources to start an article about an eminent professor of medicine who is unrelated to his employer. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with this, but I think it needs to be codified, and some sort of process developed for handling conflicts over interpretation. Maybe COIN would do, I don't know. One thing is clear: the paid connected tag is not really appropriate for a Wikimedian-in-residence programme. There should be a specific tag for that so that people looking to asses specific edits can check the details of the specific programme. And the bonkers bit here is that the real spammers don't give a fuck, they just carry on anyway - this is a fight between the good guys while the bad guys point and laugh. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a specific tag for WiR that I created a number of weeks ago here. Per the talk page it is already becoming controversial.

If a university labels someone within their marketing department a WiR, this does not than allow them to upload the CV's / promotional pages of all their faculty to Wikipedia without disclosure. Is this what you are proposing User:RexxS?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Jytdog tagged and article Andy had edited with a COI tag. Understandably, that would be disconcerting for the tagged editor and is a clear accusation about COI involvement. I don't know how that can be denied. This is another indication of where this problem started and of Jytdog's accusatory position."The article where Andy and I started this clash -- a paid editor was paid to get tags removed and fix two other things and asked Andy to do that for him. What all of that is about, is subverting community review processes so that a client has a nice pretty clean PR piece. So really. No. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)"- another highly accusatory comment. The further discussion in an RfA was about adding a COI aspect to a clean up tag. Jytdog also said, "Widefox the language that WAID suggested, has only been objected to by people who operate in the territory of COI and who should be much more ginger than they are being here. I have started an RfC to try to get wider input; the parties talking here are not going to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)" Since Jytdog has already tagged Andy with a COI these comments seem pretty clear comments about Andy's involvement. (Perhaps to me too since I have also been tagged with a COI tag in the past and no real evidence given- disclaimer). I don't think Andy is digging a hole; I find Wikipedia narratives alarming. He's trying to get out of a hole someone else threw him in, quite a different kettle of fish, to mix metaphors. What might be a good idea is a bigger discussion about COI in an open forum where no one is accused of anything. COI accusations should not be used to control articles, discussions, or damage editors, and that is the way things are going right now. Guy, I really appreciate your measured input in this and I also appreciate that Jytdog has the best of the encyclopedia at heart.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC))

It's also very hard to list out the scenarios for PAID vs. COI vs. leaving a note on talk as best practice ("I met this guy once, so I am fixing this problem") without straying into WP:BEANS territory. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil's statement that I placed the tag that Andy removed, is not accurate; I did not place the tag at Martin Saidler that started all this. I didn't place any of the forty or so tags that Andy stripped.Joecollier edited the Joe Collier (pharmacologist) article that Pigsonthewing had created under the GLAM program. So yes I tagged the talk page (not the article) with a "connected contributor" tag with respect to Joecollier, and the PAID tag with respect to Pigsonthewing. I made a small correction here after Pigsonthewing complained. Still not sure exactly what the complaint was about, due to the terse comment he left. But I do see that he took the PAID tag as a grave insult, and it was unwise of me to place that one. I am fine with the new Template:Connected contributor (WiR) talk page tag, btw.

There is way too much bullshit (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth) being flung around this discussion.

I am also very unhappy with Guy's claim here which picks up the bullshit being repeated by RexxS (eg diff) that the RfC has anything to do with Andy or glam.

It does not have anything thing to do with that.

The issue being discussed in the RfC came up as a side conversation distinct from what Andy was doing, if you see the discussion here between WhatamIdoing, Widefox and me, you will see that. The phrase was added to the template instructions by WAID in this diff.

Adding "without a COI" would not even have prevented Andy from removing the tag at the Saidler article, or any of the 40 or so articles from which he stripped the tag. So not only is there a claim that I am underhanded, or trying to win a content dispute by changing the instructions (which is a slimey thing to do), but also that I am stupid.

I am none of those things.

The disagreement with Andy has been difficult. Discussions of COI are difficult. I have done some fucked up things, and I pretty much know when I am have done them. This was not one of them.

But this claim, coming from RexxS who is meant to be somebody respected and board-memberish, and coming from Guy, whom I have respected in many ways, about what I am doing and who I am is not tolerable. It's a petty thing, right? Why should I really care if people say nasty shit about me? On this issue, which is so core to what I spend much of my time doing here, it matters. Its not "hey you made a mistake" -- it's "you are doing slimey shit and plan on using this to do more". And that kind of thing, coming from respected people here? It will only get piled onto from there. There is no point in sticking around to watch the shitpile grow. And the work is difficult enough as it is. So I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC) (redact mistake. I realize this is post-close, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (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.

KolbertBot

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.

---

KolbertBot has twice added an https header to a URL when one was not necessary. I can not discuss this with the bot operator due to the KolbertBot talk page being protected so that only admin and template editors can edit it. So, unfortunately, I have to bring this here. The diffs for the edits are here and here and the actual link in question is here. When clicked you will see, there isn't a https header to that website URL.

Typically, I wouldn't raise a fuss over this, as it is very minor, but this is a Featured Article so any issues can cause problems for that particular article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the archive link with a more 'current' version in the current style of the site, though it's still not HTTPS. Maybe KB needs to be wild-carded to avoid this type of situation? Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Jon Kolbert is not even semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: True, but I didn't look there, I looked at KolbertBot, which is where we go to communicate with the bot owner. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone there as I would have expected the same thing. I don't think I've ever seen a bot owner protecting the talk page of his bot in such a manner.

@Nate: Much appreciated! I have the page watchlisted, so I'll let you know if this problem pops up with the new link. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Neutralhomer. You said the KolbertBot Talk page. User talk:KolbertBot is a redirect that sends you to the bot owner's Talk page. That's where you should have gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Neutralhomer:, I template protected the bot's talk page on Jon's request because people had been posting there, when they should have been bringing it to his talk. This is something I know had been done for one of Cyberpower's bots before, and given it was a self-request in talk page, I granted it, since I thought it would be abundantly clear with the redirect who they should talk to. Hopefully this clears it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As I have said before, I'm running on one year old information. A year ago we talked to bot operators on the bot talk pages for bot-related stuff and on the user talk page for user-related stuff. If that has changed, I was unaware of it. I know this now and so I will do so from here on. Prior to, I was using year old information (actually October 2016 and earlier). Again, I apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

New York Times has described an intent to gradually move all of its content to HTTPS, not all of it is there yet, but there was consensus to change all NYT links to HTTPS in anticipation of the change here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, while the NYT announcement says so far only "articles published in 2014 and later" are HTTPS accessible, I want to convert them all right now for two reasons: (1) it does not break older links (for example), only redirect to HTTP again; but if NYT does that on their site, at least they keep the HTTP Referrer information. And (2) as they announced they "intend to bring the rest of our site under the HTTPS umbrella", so it's only a matter of time. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert:: The only reason that this is a problem for me and this article is this a Featured Article. The link, when run through CheckLinks, shows as 301/Permanently Moved. For sticklers and those more strict when it comes to FA rules, a permanent 301, even if it is the website's fault (in this case they are moving everything to https), they feel is a basis for removing a FA star. Yes, I've seen it. So, I'd rather not let something petty and minor cause problems for this FA. When the link goes to https, I can move it to correct header. I check the article via CheckLinks myself (this is my FA) about once a month. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:45 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Jon added a 'deny' template to the top of WINC (AM) for KB to prevent it from converting the HTTP to HTTPS; completely forgot about that (I use the same to deny the pesty DPL/NoBracket Bots from my user talk page). There will still need to be checks to see when it switches to HTTPS, but this should work pretty well until then. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this has been closed, but I just wanted to acknowledge Nate's response (and respond myself) and thank Jon and Nate for their help here. I'll keep an eye on the article via CheckLinks per usual. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:23 on February 11, 2018 (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.

Portrait of King Sejong, once again

Once again, the painting by Kim Gi-chang (see https://namu.wiki/w/%EA%B9%80%EA%B8%B0%EC%B0%BD) has reappeared in the infobox of the Sejong the Great article. This portrait was one of the "portraits drawn by [order of] the state for the purpose of unifying and regulating the forms of statues and portraits, which were under the presidency (April 27, 1973) and the Prime Minister directive (March 5, 1973)", see https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%91%9C%EC%A4%80%EC%98%81%EC%A0%95. As a result, Kim Gi-chang, King Sejong (1397–1450) and Admiral Yi Sun-sin (1545–1598) have quite the same face, due probably to the fact that only Kim Gi-chang was available as a model at the time of the painting.

Moreover, according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/term_details.aspx?bioId=139649, Kim Ki Chang (김기창 金基昶) lived 1913-2001, so that we have an obvious copivio. But we need infoboxes, don't we ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Take this
2. Put it here
3. /thread GMG^talk 12:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Help on proper name of British International School of Washington

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. The school's website confirms this as the proper title. Someone is reverting and using a legal document (primary source) to claim otherwise. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one week so that the issue with the article title and the school's name can be discussed and worked out properly on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed it back to "British International School of Washington" since that is what the school's website and logo say. I left an edit summary encouraging talk page discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks Cullen328. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer, redux

User:Amy foster was blocked indefinitely yesterday after a bizarre death hoax (partially done as an IP) at Erika Heynatz and a long line of warnings for similarly strange behaviour. The same user has now popped up under another IP at Craig McLachlan posting the same Heynatz hoax (the Heynatz article being semiprotected).

Can someone please semiprotect Craig McLachlan and re-add the just lapsed semiprotection on Erika Heynatz because the hoaxer is still trying this on? It would be great if the range could be blocked too.

Both articles are currently in the Australian news, so this is particularly important. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked. I PC'd one article, Courcelles semied the other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)

I would like to bring attention to this user's actions. I made an edit yesterday to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

There was a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. The edit I made removed text from the article that was causing the violation.

Right after making the edit on the page, Fyunck(click) reverted it. I attempted to undo his revert, but he again reverted it and left a threat on my talk page.

I created a new section of the Talk page for the Rod Laver article explaining why I made the changes I made and why they were in violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Fyunck(click) could not refute the fact that he was making edits in violation of the Manual of Style, and made two more unsubstantiated claims. I provided evidence refuting those two claims, and provided evidence that he was violating WP:NPOV. Fyunck(click) proceeded to completely delete the section on the Talk page and say he was going to report me. Zerilous (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack. After reverting their blanking of a talkpage section, I looked at their vandalism board report and then at your contribs. Whose sock are you, if you don't mind me asking? Heiro 03:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's sad to me that so many people on Wikipedia focus only on the age of a user's account and not the arguments that they are putting forth. It's one of the reasons I've never created an account on here. I am not a sock puppet, and I'm here to discuss the article in question and the inappropriate actions a user has taken in retaliation for the reasoned edits I made to said article. Zerilous (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How could you possibly know about MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL & for that matter, WP:ANI? GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He's obviously not a new user. Yet he has a point, about Fyunck(click) adding uncited claims about Rod Laver being the greatest tennis player of all time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But they way they jumped in, then straight to ANI, and blanked all warnings added to their talkpage immediately seemed odd. Heiro 04:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerilous: Actually, this IS sourced in the article. See footnote #9, which is the source for a statement made by Trabert in 2008. It's in the Place among the all-time great players section of the article. This is where the statement in the lede originated. (Sorry, a bit rusty on diffs). Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If so, then it's arguably valid, though kind of pointless: "some say he's the best" so by implication "some say he's not the best". Big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no qualms about whether it's "some" or "many." When you look at the very highest echelon of tennis players such as Roger Federer or Serena Williams, you find those same statements. With so many sourced in the proper sections below I didn't see a need for more sourcing in the lead. And, sorry, but with his knowledge of wiki-protocol and the recent plethora of sockpuppets plaguing tennis articles right now, I don't trust this editor. He goes to immediate personal attacks on the Rod Laver talk page accusing me of harassment with improper disparaging headers, with a brand new account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

One other thing. To be honest, if no article said this type of thing, I would have no problem with it. In fact I originally voted to curtail them but was trounced in that endeavor. They are a fact of wikipedia. And there are only tiny handful of tennis players that fit this description. Rod Laver is certainly one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

His complaints against you are totally unfounded. Thanks for the good editing. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And then his topic headers and more personal attacks, as opposed to a helpful discussion on on the Rod Laver talk page, seem way out of bounds to me. I tried to change the header and he simply piled on. So I removed the entire item, and it was put back by another editor. That stuff upset me for sure. If he's not a sock or old disgruntled editor I've dealt with in the past, I would apologize for not trusting his motives. But that talk page post has to go. It is not furthering the betterment of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw you put a SPI header on his user page, but you also have to open a case on the case page. As things stand now no check is occurring. --Tarage (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

An SPI won't do anything unless a recent previous sock can be identified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be honest, he doesn't quite fit the couple of socks we've been battling over the last couple weeks at Tennis Project. The main one being a million socks of User:Maggiefluffy But it's either that or another slightly older editor who was upset with me for something in the past. He was trying to dredge up old edits of mine too and doesn't like my edits on Laver or Federer... maybe a Rafael Nadal fan I got into an argument with? I can think of one from July 2017 who got blocked, I'm just not sure though... but my spider sense has been tingling since this new guy arrived on scene. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am not a sock puppet, and this entire conversation has nothing to do with the reason I made this request on the noticeboard to begin with. Fyunck(click) made an edit that was a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. Looking at this past edits of other articles, it's clear he has a bias and is in violation of WP:NPOV. When I attempted to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, Fyunck(click) could not refute the evidence I brought forth about his violations of the Manual of Style, and he proceeded to get upset, threaten me, and delete the discussion on the Talk page. Zerilous (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noting Fyunck reported Zerilous at WP:AIV, and I rejected the report, as none of the edits made by Zerilous could reasonably be considered vandalism. I would suggest we should start by considering whether Zerilous has a point about that article being puffery and weaselly, in which case the edits were reasonable. Fish+Karate 11:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. How is it encyclopedic to report that "some" consider a person the greatest or worst or whatever at something? Let's stick to the facts and skip people's vague opinions. In particular, are any of the sources for the first sentence (not to mention the unsourced removed-and-readded-and-removed-and-readded sentence) scholars in the field, whether historians or scholars of sport? They all look like journalists, and they're all writing in news reports or other publications (e.g. this opinion and ticket-purchasing website) that get no peer review by real scholars. Stick to what's been published in reliable sources for this kind of field, such as academic journals or books from university presses. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend 100%. The article's content should speak for itself, we don't need vague statements or people's opinions to convolute an encyclopedic article. Zerilous (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious you're not new to Wikipedia. What other accounts or IP's have you edited under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's disappointing that you would rather focus on the age of my account rather than the reasoned arguments I'm making. I'm not a sock puppet. I haven't edited any other articles. I'm here to discuss the edits made and actions taken by Fyunck(click). I've presented evidence that his edits and actions are a clear violation of MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV. I agree with Fish and karate and Nyttend that we should be focusing on the points I'm brining up and the evidence supporting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerilous (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what the section focuses on. And your unwillingness to be straight with us only adds to suspicions about you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Unwillingness to be straight with you? I've stated multiple times that I am not a socket puppet and am not editing on another account. It doesn't get any more straight than that. I don't appreciate your attacks on my words and my character. I would very much like to get this thread back on topic and discuss whether or not Fyunck(click) edits and actions are a violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL, and if his past editing of other articles I've described and listed demonstrates a violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Since your removal of the material has not been reverted [3] it would seem everyone agrees with that accessment and does not seem to be in contention. But since the only edits by your new account are concerning that article (and it's talk), Fyunck(click) and his talkpage, and this ANI, it does make one wonder why you created a new account specifically for this issue, since you know your way around enough presumably you have been here for awhile. Heiro 18:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The technical term is "avoiding scrutiny". Note that he admits to creating the account in order to challenge the other user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing. About your statement "Since your removal of the material has not been reverted." I'm not sure what that means since he just reverted it. By that standard I added it a month ago and no one reverted it either, so it also must not have been in contention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this ANI thread was started, judging by the comments above, it has gotten scrutiny and everyone who has opined so far seems to agree with the removal except for you. Heiro 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That appears not to be the case from what I read here. And we also have a problem. Have you ever tried to get those statements removed from articles such as Federer or Williams or Pelé? I have, and I was crushed by overwhelming consensus that they stay. Once done I can move on right away and follow those decisions. I add to Laver and this happens. It's very confusing to say the least and I've been here a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts are edit-warring and could both be blocked. Which is probably why the OP made a new account - so when it gets blocked, he can go merrily back to editing under his real account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I was treating it as a sock or vandalism from the getgo, seeing it was new and all the hateful harassment/lie charges he was throwing about on talk pages (Which are still there by the way). I still have my suspicions. That account was created just for this, and it looks like it's worked so far because here we are. I'm going to back away for a few hours here because this is starting to make me upset that it could get this far with talk of blocking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Friendly reminder, @Baseball Bugs and Heironymous Rowe: unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are little more than meaningless personal attacks and, in this case, serve only as a distraction. Socking is dealt with based on specific evidence and without any direct confrontation. Swarm ♠ 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The user admits that he created the account in order to fight on the Rod Laver article. He also refuses to explain how he knows so much about Wikipedia behind-the-scenes stuff after being here only a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you Swarm ♠. To Baseball Bugs, at no point did I say I created this account in order to fight with anyone on anything. You have repeatedly attacked me and made false claims against me in this section. You refuse to discuss the issue I raised, which is that a user made an edit to an article that violated the Manual of Style, and when I pointed this out to said user, he proceeded to harass me and delete the discussion I started on the article's talk page. I urge you once again to please focus on the issues that I'm bringing up. If you'd like to open up a sock puppet investigation against me, by all means please do. I am not a sock puppet and have nothing to hide, and I have no problem discussing why I created my account. That discussion would take place in another location, as pointed out by Swarm ♠. The purpose of this section is to discuss the actions of Fyunck(click). He inserted claims into an article that violate MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. His past edits to other articles demonstrate a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs: You miss the point. Even if this user is actually a sock, it's still counterproductive and disruptive to harass them about it here or anywhere else. If you have evidence, you should simply make a report. As I'm sure you know the standard for blocking suspected socks is really quite low. But a new account being "too knowledgable" is not considered evidence. If you don't have evidence, then keep your suspicions to yourself. Making a direct accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence is a great way to ensure that a sock will take care to not slip up and reveal any evidence to confirm the suspicion. What you're doing is literally counterproductive to fighting sockpuppetry. Best case scenario, the user is telling the truth about this being their first account, and you're thoroughly biting them. Swarm ♠ 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts

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

---

A blatant personal attack on me: [4]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - .....Really? ...After what we just talked about five minutes ago in the ANI discussion you started above? Come on, man! You're killin' me here! Can you please stop with the responses and calling him a "z-troll"? It's obviously not constructive and it provides no benefit what-so-ever to anybody (including yourself) when you do that... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 10 February 2018 (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.

Nationalist user who may not be able to contribute

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

---

A new user, Asepsia, does not seem to be able to contribute and it is starting to get disruptive. It's entirely possible that the problem is the user's lack of English skills. Messages written by the user are barely comprehensible (and sometimes incomprehensible even with the best of wills) and it also seems as if the user is unable to understand English. As a case in point: the user insists of inserting very dubious claims about the Spanish language, claiming countries such as Australia, Norway, Canada, Japan etc. as Spanish speaking in the infobox. Despite having been reverted by several users (myself included), Asepsia just keeps inserting these outlandish claims [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I've tried over and over again to explain on the talk page that this is not how we do things, and explained that infoboxes for comparable languages (English, French, Portuguese, German, Italian etc.) only list countries where the language is official. Despite me having explained this five times now, Asepsia seems unable to understand, and just keeps repeating that it is discrimination. Because of the Asepsia's poor English, it's not clear what the alleged discrimination is.
The only other article Asepsia has edited is USS Maine (ACR-1) and the pattern is the same there; while I cannot comment on the content (not knowing the USS Maine), it's clear that Asepsia in inserting very poor English and edit wars if reverted [10], [11], [12], [13]. Because of Asepsia's disruptive pattern, we now have a high profile article (Spanish language) claiming complete nonsense, and another article (USS Maine (ACR-1)) in something that is not English. Unfortunately I have to ask that Asepsia be blocked. Perhaps the user is not intentionally disruptive (although the heavy edit warring suggest otherwise). Even in the best of cases, a user who is not able to write correct English and apparently does not understand English sufficiently well to take in arguments in discussion cannot contribute. I suggest Spanish Wikipedia may be a better place for this user. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd reverted several of this person's edits to USS Maine (ACR-1) as obvious vandalism before it even occurred to me that they were serious and possibly in good faith. The edits are that bad; I doubt it's merely a language question. Anmccaff (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (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.

Nikanpc1920

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've been offered "compensation" to remove a CSD by Nikanpc1920 (talk · contribs) - Special:Permalink/825102481. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2018 (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:211.209.235.161

211.209.235.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Still the same person. After the previous 2 block expired and many warnings, he still remove content without reasons. See: [14] and more. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Numbers vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked by Oshwah. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this the numbers vandal again? This seems to be a different range but is making random changes to numbers on many articles. Home Lander (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is any particular vandal that's been discussed previously, but Oshwah blocked the IP editor already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Kapoor2013

User:Kapoor2013 (talk) has repeatedly moved ([15]) Draft:Stree (2018 film) from the draft space to the main space, ignoring the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Dinesh Vijan film (and an explicit warning and explanation from me at [16]), which decided that the article be kept as a draft until it can satisfy WP:NFILM criteria. This is addition to the various warnings about disruptive editing, copyright violation, and vandalism that Kapoor has accrued on his talk page. Considering this behavior has continued for over a month, I am beginning to suspect that this editor is not here to cooperate in the building of Wikipedia and is at the very least unwilling to heed consensus. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've requested Move Protection which should solve part of the problem. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've revdelled their copyvios at Batti Gul Meter Chalu and warned them. If they commit any more copyright violations, they'll be indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Muhiyidin Moye

People may want to be observant of editing on this page that has some heat in the wider world and easily a target for contentious and unconstructive editing. Smkolins (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rambling rant with implied suicide threat on Ref Desk talk

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.

---

Here. Suggest revdel or notify WMF emergency.--WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Rev-deleted and reported. Amortias (T)(C) 12:52, 12 February 2018 (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.

revdel 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.

---

Does this qualify for revdel? special:diff/825267904 —usernamekiran(talk) 15:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it already has been. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 12 February 2018 (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.

Linking members of board to Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress

Are these legitimate additions, or a sort of spam [17] to include a marginally notable organization in many bios? Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, 73.159.24.89. I think those additions are abuse of Wikipedia to promote this organization. We also have a terrible article about it, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, which was just tagged by User:Pablomartinez as having notability issues and being written like an advertisement. Ain't that the truth. I'm going to shorten it drastically and think about taking it to AfD. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

AFD? I'd have been tempted to just G11 it and called it good. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to take responsibility for that, seeing as it has been here since 2007. But don't let me stop you from giving in to temptation, Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

I'm relatively new (again) to wikipedia, but I'm glad to see someone else noticed the edits. Thanks for following up! PabloMartinez (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, PabloMartinez, thanks for tagging. Er, was the IP above also you? Courcelles has reverted the additions to the bios, and I have stubbed the article. (I'm a little worried that I may enjoy cutting puffery too much.) It seemed appropriate to remove the advert tag after that, but all the other tags still apply. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, original IP is not mine! Cut away! - PabloMartinez (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, I just found out the IP isn't yours. They've posted on my page, because ANI is now semiprotected. (Curse you, Floquenbeam.) Bishonen | talk 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"I love it when a plan comes together..."—Col. Floquen "Hannibal" Beam  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen wins the "Machete Wielder of the Week Award". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hehe. Thank you Cullen328. 😈 Bishonen | talk 09:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

• Another thing: This one may not be any worse than our other think tank articles (we have many), I guess. I checked out American Foreign Policy Council at random, just looking for a better pattern for the CSPC infobox, and realized most of that article was copypasted straight from the organization's website. No wonder it sounded like advertising. Probably few experienced editors check these articles in any depth, because they're so boring. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

IP editor 86.87.212.214 - long-term disruptive editing, no communication.

86.87.212.214 (talk · contribs) appears to have a fixed IP number, and a history of the same pattern of exclusively unconstructive edits, going back about a year. They're sporadic, less than 40 in total, usually small changes. Many of them are unexplained removals of well-sourced material which apparently conflicts with their views about Iran. They often involve removals of mentions of Turkic, Arab, and Jewish people, eg. [18], [19], [20]. Many are clumsy changes in the attribution of the origin of some word, food dish, etc., to their own country, eg. [21], [22], [23]. The editor has never used an edit summary, nor participated in a talk page. They appear to be unaware of their own talk page, warnings, and a recent 24-hour block. They don't seem to be hostile or engage in edit wars; they're oblivious to the fact that essentially all of their edits have been reverted, by many different editors. There may be one or two edits that are not completly wrong. I suppose it must be assumed they're editing in good faith, however misguided, rather than vandalizing. But it seems to me they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, so much as to push crude nationalistic beliefs, and there's no hope of improvement if they won't communicate with anyone. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See Jasper2018 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours... The "it wasn't me" defence would be easier to believe, despite the close resemblance of the earlier edits, if 86.87.212.214 was a dynamic IP from Iran, rather than a (normally fixed) IP from KPN in the Netherlands.[24] Also, compare these edits, one from last October, and the one from yesterday: [25] / [26]. --IamNotU (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know why this person response from their account on the IP talk page instead of here, but maybe we should be grateful. I believe they are incompetent (for linguistics reasons, and the aforementioned oblivion) for the English Wikipedia, and if you throw in edits like this one, yeah. Don't rightly know what to do--we could throw out an indefinite block, of course, but I'm not feeling that this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do either. I'm ok with whatever anyone suggests. I'm not familiar with what options there might be other than blocking, it's only the second time I've posted something at ANI. I certainly don't want to interact with this person, after the incoherent tirade about conspiracies involving me and phantom Turkish fascists... --IamNotU (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, IamNotU: If there are language barriers, why not ask them what their primary language is and help them by linking them to the Wikipedia sister project of their primary language? Then they can go through the tutorials there (if applicable) and if the user wishes to, return here after being affiliated with the project. Who knows... (s)he may just find that they prefer editing on that language project instead of here and that was what they were looking for all along :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I assume their native language is Persian, and they're aware of fa.wikipedia.org. By their own account, they've been using Wikipedia for at least four years. Oshwah, did you have a look at the monologue at their talk page? The language barrier is high, they're not able to correctly read my comment, nor the articles, that they're railing against. But that's not the biggest problem. Besides the transparent denial of making the edits in question, their essay makes it clear that their purpose is "to make it correct the way i have educated myself", and to rectify what they perceive as lies about Persia, perpetrated by a conspiracy of Arabs, Turks, and others "making story's that have no real sources" - despite reliable sources being cited. It's the undertone of neglect of wp:NDP with respect to national origin that concerns me the most. The majority of their edits have been unexplained changes in well-sourced material that results in the text directly contradicting the cited source. They're essentially a wp:spa with a wp:soapbox agenda. From what they've written, it seems to me they're rather deeply committed to this stance, and they don't wp:get the point about wp:npov, wp:reliable sources, wp:cite, and wp:original research. The effort to educate and clean up after them seems diproportionate to whatever positive contributions (so far none) they could make. On the other hand, they have responded and promised not to make any more disruptive edits, and to participate on talk pages. I suppose it would be possible to just close this for now and see what happens, but I rather doubt that anything good will come of it. Again, I'm not very familiar with what usually happens in these situations. --IamNotU (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IamNotU - Yeah, I support your thoughts at the end. If they've responded and promised to improve and to participate on talk pages, and they haven't continued so far - I'd say that talking to the user was sufficient and we can probably close this for now and give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that they'll do so :-). Let me know if this is what you want to do, and I'll be happy to close this for now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, I don't object, go ahead and close it if you like... --IamNotU (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Legal team needs to call?

Legal threat ? see here.--Moxy (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. They are asking what "would work". Although not very nicely. They have also now been warned about legal threats, so we can see whether they continue with such unwisely worded comments or not. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: you are required to notify the user of this posting, and do not seem to have done so. I'll do that for you now. MPS1992 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shit forgot to save.....my bad.--Moxy (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Moxy - It happens; I've forgotten to do it before, too ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhhh, no..... this is totally a legal threat and attempting to add a chilling effect out of anger and frustration and alongside blatant incivilty and personal attacks and while telling Walter Görlitz that he runs "a scam"- that is absolutely not gonna fly (not past my radar, at least). I've blocked the account indefinitely and let the user know with a custom notice. With a response like that, I'm happy to kindly put an end to that... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I love the fact that they are part of a Christian rock band but then use language and names like that. One of these things is not like the other. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - Having been raised by religious parents and all that jazz... yeah, I'm definitely in agreement with you there, Canterbury Tail. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this while I slept. Special thanks to @The Rambling Man: for removing the content from my talk page and @Oshwah: for enacting the block. Should a proper block notice be placed on the subject's talk page? Also, do I need to provide additional background or is the edit history enough? It was primarily this edit where the subject credits himself as a "touring member", which is different from being an actual member of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - No problem; always happy to help :-). I notified the user with a custom message here, which is a perfectly sufficient notice regarding their block ;-). Let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You know ... while working through AIV within the last week, I've seen a pretty similar edit by a different user. Can't recall who since someone else acted on it. And can't remember the article. But I definitely remember, "Are you a moron?" and something about the image. Just a thought if this comes up again, it's probably a sock. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shocker..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

ChiveFungi aggressive insulting attitude

Dear Wikipedia

I've been editing in a small way for many years, largely grammar/spelling/typos using my professional publishing skills from a life in publishing. Occasionally I write in Talk pages with suggestions, leaving it to the editors of pages to accept or reject.

I recently had cause to suggest a correction to a page in its Talk page due to personal knowledge. The page in question is Eurabia, the article attributes the creation of the name to someone in 2005, while I know as a fact that the painter Michael Bowen painted a painting in Florence in the 1980s with this title and has explained the thinking behind it to me in an email, which I quoted from. Bowen, who is now dead, was a widely traveled, non-bigoted individual who was married to an Indian woman and has a child by her, was immersed in Eastern religions, and, while living in Florence with his then Italian wife, painted Eurabia. I gave all this information in good faith, expecting it to be appreciated as yet more knowledge. Instead the author of the page aggressively told me: There's no need for white genocide conspiracy theory type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't edited anything but wrote a suggestion on the talk page based on knowledge. I am not a 'white genocide conspiracy theory type' whatever that is and hadn't even heard of this particular conspiracy theory previously, it sounds to me that ChiveFungi has an agenda and no one is allowed to disturb it. Having looked at ChiveFungi's talk page, I see a number of others have responded to his immoderate outbursts and bullying with remarks similar to mine, that his attack is unwarranted, that his attitude stinks, as also illustrated by 'Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.'

If anyone fairly reads my comments, they will see I am not part of any conspiracy theory [I have attacked many of these over the decades myself], was not 'disruptibe editing' nor have I ever vandalised Wikipedia, and I will not be accused of it by this person who clearly has issues that perhaps make him unsuitable as an editor? His insulting, belittling attitude is unjustified and if he had read and understood what I wrote he would not have been as confused as he clearly is. Perhaps he sees all edits to his little empire here as threats? If so he needs to be reminded how to behave. My faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia has been challenged by this as also my faith in it being a respectful community and I shall never again defend it against ignorant people. PetePassword (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment) - I have removed the ANI template from the header and placed on the accused's talkpage on behalf of filer - courtesy ping ChiveFungi Nightfury 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Just gonna throw my 2 cents in but looking at the replies from both users personally both deserve blocking for incivilty. –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, although I think PetePassword's incivility is the greater of the two. ChiveFungi stuck to template messages after that initial comment, whereas PetePassword has gone on to call ChiveFungi a "dickhead" [27], ask "What's your mental problem" [28], and say "I suspect his ego can't handle what it sees as criticism, a common problem among juveniles" [29]. Marianna251TALK 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then it looks like they both need final warnings for incivility and for making personal attacks - can we do this and call it at that? Or does anyone feel that further digging and/or action may be needed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Firstly, I think I was correct in my assessment that what they had posted was racist:

I have come across the term [Eurabia] however as a descriptor of what is happening/has happened to Europe with the connivance of the liberal political class - no conspiracy, just a lot of virtue signalling liberals signing their own culture's death warrant out of stupidity and an imagined multicultural world

This is white genocide conspiracy theory. The idea that white liberals are allowing their own culture/people to die out by allowing foreigners in. It's a racist conspiracy theory. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and not call somebody's remarks racist when it seems borderline. But I don't think this was borderline.

And secondly, regarding the tone - I don't think I was being uncivil. I certainly don't tiptoe around the feelings of people who write racist rants, but I don't think I was being belligerent. Merely direct and to-the-point.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just removed a racist rant from this section and warned the user responsible. If you believe I did it in an uncivil way, please explain what you think I did wrong, and how I could do it better in future. Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Leftist SJWs like ChiveFungi smear anyone they don't like as racists. This is why Trump won. Normal people are sick and tired of this vile and racist leftist bullshit. Leftists like ChiveFungi are the real racists. And no, "Eurabia" is not white genocide conspiracy theory, which is a neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. It is an established fact observed by Jews living in Europe who are oppressed and persecuted by the new Muslim immigrants. Comparing Jews to Nazis is another tactic favored by leftist anti-Semites like ChiveFungi. And the multiculturalist agenda of leftist elites is well-documented. Just look at your very own Multiculturalism article. Many countries, including once-homogenous Sweden, have it as official state policy. In London British people are a minority. The BBC even indoctrinates children with its "educational history programmes" into thinking black Africans were a large part of the British population during the Roman occupation and in the Middle Ages. It's evil and colonialism when white people move to non-European countries, but "culturally enriching" and "diverse and inclusive" when non-Europeans move to Europe. ChiveFungi is a good example of white self-hatred and hypocrisy. So Eurabia is hardly a "conpiracy theory" but a fact. It was popularized not by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi but by a Jewish woman named Bat Ye'or who was herself the victim of Muslim anti-Semitism that forced her and her family to flee from Egypt to Britain where the Muslims are following in persuit now in droves thanks to the leftists' demographic engineering.

I wouldn't call it racist, just right-wing editorializing based on original research (to put it charitably). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

From the content, tone and writing style, I think that IP could easily be PetePassword. It's certainly in line with opinions they've expressed elsewhere, e.g. [30][31]. I haven't filed an SPI because it's probable that they forgot to log in rather than any other motives. Marianna251TALK 23:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Look at it this way. 1. Events happen as reported by Users P & C concerned. 2. User P brings it to ANI. 3. People start agreeing with User C, who User P is clashing with. 4. An IP address (let's call that I) makes his first edit. It's a questionable one, sounds like User P's writing tone and it supports User P's viewpoint. 5. It is agreed by other users B and M that I is probably P. That seems to be more than just a "Forgot to log in" situation to me.

P.S. This is the only edit I'll be making here. I have been asked to minimise my use of ANI, but come on, this is suspicious. P.P.S. In case this goes like it usually does and I am savagely attacked by a hostile IP, I will report that here. (It almost always goes like that.) TomBarker23 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are "meh - why call everything racist?" I would be very slow to call anyone a racist, or to call anything a "racist rant" and if anyone involved here is doing that, they should stop. Focus on the merits of the edit, not the adverse label which with could might pejoratively characterize the edit. Xerton (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User inserting false titleholder

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.

---

Rndhnr has been on a cross-wiki campaign inserting a false titleholder in the article on the Duke of Gandía. I recently added an official reference (Official State Gazette, notice from the Spanish Ministry of Justice) on the current titleholder. Suspect that user Rndhnr is the same as the ip 60.153.93.4 who also edited the same article adding the same individual and also the same as HistoiredeFrance who left me a message claiming that the line is not accurate according to a soon-to-be-released book on the history of the Borja (Borgia) and whose edit in the article on Elzéar of Sabran, where he added the same false titleholder, was undone. Maragm (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Adding another suspect IP 60.152.122.245 who just reverted my edit removing false info. Maragm (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's a signature behaviour of Siredejoinville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Needs a checkuser I think. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siredejoinville. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 11 February 2018 (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.

Philblue7

Philblue7 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times about their unsourced contributions and WP:OWNership of the KidsClick article, including adding sources that are promotional WP:ADVERTs from the parent company of the children's block, and arguing about finite details such as a show being taken off for a week as permanent, along with programming grids which are overly complicated for what is a block of children's programming and should read as simple as possible. Editor also tried spinning out an article that violated WP:NOTTVGUIDE and has continued to insert guide listings into the KidsClick article despite the multiple warnings to cease and work with other editors within our policies. I feel like some kind of reinforcement is needed here because they aren't taking any advice to heart. Nate • (chatter) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly an SPA. No discussion on talk page.[32] What kind of sanction you think would be appropriate? It seems that he is gaming WP:3RR. Lorstaking (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

After this edit where they want programs in airing order they came on the air (rather than sensible alphabetical order), I think a reinforcement block is needed; we've had to remove schedules they've left too often. I'd like to hope mentoring helps but they only take the 'screaming at reverters in edit summaries' mode of communication and have never used the talk page for communication (and I'd hope they would have taken some time to comment here, but that hasn't happened). Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Block maybe harsh. I think we need extended confirmed protection for some days, either he will move on or return to edit warring someday but since he has presented no argument that why we should support his side, I believe he will get over the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We had a semi-protect on the article a couple months back; they merely ceased editing/flirted with 3RR to keep out of trouble, and they're already long auto-confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 09:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ptb011985

Persistent disruptive editing and soapboxing, WP:TALKNO entries at

1. Talk:Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this.
2. Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this
3. User talk:Zefr such as this and this. Suggest that Ptb011985 be advised about WP:TALKNO, WP:MEDRS, and WP:CIVIL. 2 week timeout would be suitable. --Zefr (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User Zefr has been trailing my edits for last week, reverting them, commenting on all talk entries, and providing his own POV. After being warned I attempted to advise user he was engaged in same behavior, but he disregarded it by removing from talk page. Warning him is harassment according to him, but he does the same thing repeatedly on my talk page and doesn't consider it harassment. Though agreement lacks, talk discussion on the article has been productive; nothing constituting soapboxing. User just disagrees and is just trying to bully his POV in via a ban. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing there in his examples. There is a discussion at hand and several users basically agree with me, several basically with Zefr. The edits cited are a matter of opinion, and other editors agree with my position (that the 'no evidence' claim should be attributed to the FDA), including one who started a talk page section on the subject. Zefr just appears to be trying to stifle the discussion in order to preserve an alleged consensus. I submit neither of us have made any significant policy violations, but if you ban one of us you must ban both. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ptb011985.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FrankM113 edits to MacKeeper

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.

---

FrankM113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been routinely editing pages related to the controversial Mac software MacKeeper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (as well as Zeobit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kromtech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the developers of the software), adding unsourced information in violation of WP:NPOV. He has been warned repeatedly to stop making these edits, but has not responded to any of the warnings he has received on his talk page. He has also had an issue with accusations of promoting a YouTube channel. Based on these facts, I would say he is not here to improve Wikipedia. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs) 17:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just adding true facts to the articles about MacKeeper so I'm here to improve Wikipedia. As for the YouTube channel I am not promoting it, I'm just interested in the channel and have stopped since Tenebrae told me to FrankM113 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (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.

Heated discussion at Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award

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 everyone. I haven't initiated an ANI report in nearly a decade of editing, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. User:Mark Thomas II made some additions to Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award recently, in the lead and table. Some of the additions are still in the article pending discussions at the talk page linked above, while some were removed and sparked some edit warring that brought Mark to 3RR. He was warned on his talk page, which seemed to anger him, and the discussion has gotten away from the topic of whether the additions benefit the list. Among the highlights are me being a hardcore article owner (with this as his evidence), me "operating WAY OUT OF LINE here for a very long time", the entire admin corps being called "THUGS", this comment joking that people with a certain medical condition are being euthanized, and vast knowledge of past Wikipedia abuses despite having 70 or so edits. In short, things have gone way off course. Would an uninvolved user mind telling Mark to calm down and focus on trying to build a consensus for his edits, as I don't think he would listen to me at this point? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The three admins currently involved are not enough.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2018 (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.

Joefromrandb

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

---

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

Joefromrandb has been commiting disruptive editing by removing the U.S. marks from various infoboxes, including Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna and Jan Maxwell, among others, as seen in those diffs 1, 2, 3, 4,5. I reverted two of his edit on Sylvester Stallone which he repeatedly reverted it back and he removed the warning I gave him about it as seen on this diff. Below are pagelinks of pages involve in Joefromrandb's disruptive editing, among others.

Sylvester Stallone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Richard Crenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jan Maxwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Joe Rogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cecil B. DeMille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Billy Dee Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eric Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BattleshipMan (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not disruptive editing, in my opinion. The US is information that can be either assumed from the city, state, or quickly determined by clicking the links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE is that way. Suggest close. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to quote it, Todd, but then I realized that only speaks to article naming, not inline mentions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that they're should be city, state, country, just like in some countries with London, England, United Kingdom. What does that tell you? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, bad example. London, England will get you there with enough precision, and I'm pretty sure it's the primary topic for London. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So just to be clear, does New York City ever need the state, when it appears in an infobox, e.g. the death place of David Bowie? And we can always just have London? Does the need for brevity always trump the need for consistency? I already commented on this at Template_talk:Infobox_person#birth_place Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Although it's worth seeing it as a need for decent writing, never mind just brevity. "London, England, United Kingdom" is dreadful and should be removed on sight. The only way it could be any worse would be to add ", Western Europe, Planet Earth, Sol System, Western Spiral Arm" and all the rest to it, as per common third grade behavior. I think we're off topic for this noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So we can all join User:Joefromrandb in changing infobox examples of "New York City, New York, U.S." to simply "New York City", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have anything better to do with your time... After all, USPLACE says Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name. That speaks to article naming, but it is based on guidance for use in news articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There should be city, state and country in infoboxes because it a standard way to reveal the person's birthplace and such, no matter how people in this site see it. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No such standard is even possible, never mind desirable, because some countries are not sub-divided into states, and indeed some locations are not cities. MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: No comment on anything else in this thread, but "no matter how people in this site see it" is exactly the wrong attitude to have when editing here. See WP:Consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb has a history of being a major disruptive editor and he's a history of blocks. Those edits he did are disruptive and there should be city, state and country in some infoboxes for standard reasons, something that he is removing most of them without clear explanation. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a borderline cheap shot. Joe's controversial background does not impede him from being right in this instance, which he is. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When we're talking about people who lived their whole lives in the US, it's a bit redundant to add US to well-known places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) It isn't that simple; it doesn't appear that everyone agrees that it should always be city, state and country. Continually reverting them in, or continually reverting them out, are both going to be considered edit warring. Looks like there's discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox person. That's a better place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary: drop the stick. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly worth reporting. However, if you want to report this to the ArbCom, you may go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb_and_others/Evidence.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not worth reporting, but also, that evidence page is closed, Robert. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC).

Maybe this case should be also. (Either that, or the electrons used to report this case should be used to recharge batteries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• We go through this every few months. (a) Article title guidelines say that US cities are generally City, State, though cities on the AP list (New York City, San Francisco, etc.) are just e.g. New York City. (b) Separately, something somewhere (MOS:Geographic Names??? or something) says that article text generally refer to cities according to the article titling standards. If you really want me to I can dig all this up. As much as I think Joefromrandb can be a prick he's right about this: we don't tell readers that states of the US are in the US. Same goes, as I recall, for English counties, Canadian provinces, and so on. Those may or may not be good guidelines for our worldwide encyclopedia, but they're the guidelines we've got.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Phew, only months, not weeks then. But just to be totally clear for the next few months.... The guideline is that if a UK county is given, no country is needed? This seems wholly contrary to the general guideline at Template talk:Infobox person, where an unlinked country is requested. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• That sounds really fascinating information and disputation that is very important to this noticeboard where Administrators' involvement is requested. Meanwhile, back in the adult world... MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just trying to determine if User:Joefromrandb is actually being disruptive. Sorry to be so childish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, actually you're trying to stir the pot. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Were you replying to me? Policy on infoboixing locations is not clear to me. Perhaps it is to you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think you need to remove the country from text because the country doesn't belong in a title, and you go ahead with that action despite being warned otherwise, you need to be stopped forcibly. Provisions for article titles don't govern provisions for text, for one thing, and you have no business making US articles less accessible to non-Americans. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, so far, four users–none of whom could ever be accused of being Wikifriends of mine–have opined that my removals of this superfluous bric-a-brac are correct, so forgive me if I heed that guidance, rather than "being warned" by a minority of one. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's another reason why you need to stop removing U.S. in American articles and making it less accessible to non-Americans. This is worldwide project and you guys have no business removing them. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're still not understanding this consensus thing that Floquenbeam tried to tell you about. If this is truly a worldwide project, how are you qualified to tell us what we can and can't do? Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the accessibility argument. Do you two (Nyttend and Battleship) seriously think that our readers need to be told that "New York City", "New York" is in the U.S.? (1) Don't treat readers as idiots and (2) there is a hyperlink there for readers to click. Are you now going to imply that readers don't know what a hyperlink is? Hell, even the image caption which reads "Tinley Park, Illinois" doesn't feel the need to bottle feed the reader.Mr rnddude (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Here are the two relevant provisions:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled Placename, State (the "comma convention"); some in U.S. territories follow Placename, Territory. A placename that needs additional disambiguation should include its county or parish (e.g., Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina, and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina)... Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless [etc etc]
• WP:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Place_names: In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

So if Joefromrandb is edit warring and being dismissive and all his usual stuff that makes people mad without helping them understand, he should stop that, but he's right on the merits in this case. Why (as Martinevans123 says) the infobox documentation conflicts with this I don't know. EEng 00:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is disruptive editing .If remove U.S how can recognize the country...U.S citizens can recognize but from remaining world cant recognize..and also reverting repetition is not good editors policy

(Kanjuncgtion (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

We're not going to debate the guideline here, O User Who Just Registered An Account One Minute Ago. EEng 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This has degraded into sockpuppetry to prove the ridiculous point. Can we just block the offenders and close this and move on please? Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2018 (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.

Question about informing an editor about a thread here

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.

---

How can one open a thread here about an editor when their talk page is fully protected and they have disabled email? It makes it impossible to comply with the instructions above. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You could "ping" them here, and that should get their attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the fucking big notice when you edit here Bugs, "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose". DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool your jets, Duncan. If he can't be contacted, just mention that fact when you report him here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• In theory, just ask an admin to leave the notice. In practice, I expect the protection has already been removed in this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Was Baseball Bugs temporarily banned from his merry interjections in this venue at some earlier time, or do I misremember? MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Apparently far beyond the comprehension of Bugs, as we have to assume he doesn't spout bullshit to wind people up deliberately, especially when he has such a long history of winding that person up, and knows damn well that the person in question would rather never hear from him ever again. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well now, I don't know much about this, whereas you and Bugs both seem to have been here a very long time. If a solution were to include an indefinite two-way interaction ban between you and Bugs, do you think that would work? MPS1992 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We seldom interact as it is. I was just gobsmacked as to why Dunc couldn't see an obvious solution to this apparent problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't ever call me Dunc, and just don't try to help me or give me advice. If I wanted advice or help from you I'd ask you. If I don't ask you, it means I don't want it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it never occurred to me that would be an insult. The nature of your question sounded like it was coming from the type of guy who would sit at a broken red light for an hour because it hadn't changed to green yet. Sometimes you've got to think outside the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You misremember. I was asked to cut back. Which I did. And my advice here was good. It's hard to figure what Duncan was confused about. If you can't post on someone's page, you make do as best you can. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, although I would appreciate a diff of the decision as well. If the solution last time was merely that you were "asked to cut back", then I am hereby asking you to cut back in 2018. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, given the above outcome, I think it would be a good idea if you avoided interacting with DuncanHill in any way, from here onwards. There are ways of making that a formal restriction, but hopefully they will not be necessary? MPS1992 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoever you are, it looks to me like you're just trying to cause trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Well, we'll see if we have this problem with you again, or not. MPS1992 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2018 (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.

Abhi1530

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 an admin look at / try to sort out the mess caused by User:Abhi1530? They have been determined to get the existing article Bonda Umamaheswara Rao removed (oft citing "unfaith") and replace it with one of their own making. User talk:Abhi1530 says that Bonda Uma is their uncle. Today they have renamed the article as Cdcddc and attempted to nominate it for deletion. Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

All dealt with by NeilN - thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (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:New2018Year

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.

---

New2018Year (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is being willfully obtuse regarding a possible move proposal of Trump to Trump (disambiguation), to the point that I believe it to be deliberate trolling/disruption.

Some recent diffs: [33] [34] [35] [36]

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also this Special:Diff/825354622. I find this particularly concerning it seems like a "do this or else" type of post. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad Faith Assumption. I am careful. I deem any Trump related topic as a hot potato. Because I thought that there was a RM moratorium for 6 months after the most recent RM, I thought that any person asking me to submit a RM now (before 6 months) was asking me to do something illegal. It is just like if a policeman asked you to disregard a stop sign....you pause and hesitate to break the law. New2018Year (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to assume good faith here for the time being, but am wondering about the past history of the user. Dekimasuよ! 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Another malformed Trump move request is the incident mentioned at Talk:Trump. Dekimasuよ! 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki is very unhospitable, very accusatory, and unpleasant. Not the Wikipedia way.

Trump is so contentious that I don't look at the page on a regular basis.

Power~enwiki is a classic example of attacking and disrupting Wikipedia. I thought there was a 6 month moratorium on Requested Move discussions but I was wrong. It is not a rolling moratorium such that there can only be a RM every 6 months. After 6 months, there can (if the community wants) a RM every week.

The initial disruption was a SNOW close of the RM discussion. This was so bad because it is a contentious issue and disputed, not a unanimous consensus, which is what SNOWs should be. Previous RM have been mixed pro and con.

Power~enwiki should attack the non-administrator that SNOW closed it. Instead, he is attacking me, an innocent user. New2018Year (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Chris H of New York. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did what I could. That's the one I was wondering about. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 13 February 2018 (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.

Sandboxes used for content saving, including deleted content

An editor is keeping about 20 copies of various articles including deleted articles in his user space in apparent violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Could somebody have a look at his his talkpage and see if my warning is way off base. He has also invited a blocked editor to do the same.

I think this might be in good faith, but I'm having difficulty explaining the policies to them. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of relevant notifications from talk pages of seven WikiProjects

Recently, I saw that this process was initiated: Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy, and since that article is quite important I decided to make some appropriate notifications on talk pages of seven WikiProjects that are most relevant to that subject, in order to inform interested users, but within few minutes user @Calthinus: (who is advocating deletion of that article), decided to remove all those notifications from all seven project talk pages, and he did so here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece: DBR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania: DBR, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia: DBR. Further more, on my talk page the same user accused me of "Inappropriate campaigning". I urge administrators to take a look at this problem, since I did not want to revert his reverts. I would like to know, were my notifications appropriate or not? If they were, then I hope they will be restored. Sorabino (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate, because not WP:NPOV. You should word it in a way that nobody knows your opinion; e.g, Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy. Thank you, ~~~~. and nothing more. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, if current wording is the problem then I will reduce notifications to simple information about proposed deletion, I guess that would be acceptable? Sorabino (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino I would recommend that, if you choose four Orthodox countries to ping to, you instead ping to all of them -- and throw in other countries involved in the page while you're at it, like Poland, Turkey, Kosovo and Albania-- not just those four so as not to give impressions of selectiveness.-Calthinus (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion your notifications were inappropriately phrased and constituted canvassing in violation of policy. See WP:CANVASS. This does not mean notifications of any sort to relevant WikiProjects are inappropriate canvassing, but when you couple advocacy with your notification, it is usually improper. I also note that you did not notify the target of this complaint, which is mandatory. I have done this for you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv Umm, this post by Sorabino is insinuating false things regarding myself. I am not advocating deletion at the current moment, nor was I when I removed Sorabino's notices. I'm currently advocating a title change and the current page becoming a disambiguation, which is not deletion. Again, I stated this before I removed Sorabino's notices [[37]]. I removed them not because of my stance, but because they were inappropriate. Insinuations not appreciated. --Calthinus (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to how Sorabino's notices were worded, the choice of WikiProjects was pretty bad -- he specifically omitted the projects of countries that were involved that the page portrayed in a negative light (Poland, Kosovo, etc...) while pinging specifically the project pages of specifically the Orthodox countries (Russia, Greece, Romania, and Serbia) that have had historical disputes with non-Orthodox countries. He also omitted every single Orthodox country that lacks religiously-tinged major historical dispute with a non-Orthodox country (Ethiopia, Georgia...)--Calthinus (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am not "insinuating false things" about anyone: user @Calthinus: has voted to "delete" the article and that vote of his still stands there: Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy. Sorabino (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and after that I made quite clear that my position had changed, and this was before reverting you [[38]]. It's fine if you didn't notice that, but please don't be so fast to attribute my actions to my (false) position, especially on this page.--Calthinus (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Voting rules are simple: if some has voted to "delete" an article, that vote stands for deletion unless it is visually suppressed and changed by the same user. The vote of user @Calthinus: is still standing for deletion. Sorabino (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So, wait, despite this [[39]] you're still insisting that my (incorrect) stance is relevant to my removal of messages that violated our community standards? Honestly, that just makes me sad.--Calthinus (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sorabino:, i agree with @Mathglot: and @Mendaliv: here. One you could have worded it better (and neutrally) and two if your going to add it to wikiprojects for further discussion, add it to ones that the page is already listed as being part of [40] in addition to others as they come first and with the others its much more than just a few select countries. In some places Orthodoxy is a majority, in others its a minority but many wikiprojects would be covered under those aspects. Also personal attacks like on @Calthinus: or other editors are not needed. Please refrain from it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Sorabino that is not how it works, they are called !votes for a reason. The closer looks at the arguments made by the AfD participants not the votes. In this case Calthinus made a clear statement of compromise that included keeping the existing article under a different name. In general it is best not to comment on other editors' motivations at all. It is a quick way to needlessly heat up an argument and often an easy way to end up with a short break from editing if one persists. I typically find it helpful to apologize if I find I have made an incorrect assumption about another editor. It costs nothing and can calm the waters.

On the topic of notifications simply remember that in order not to run afoul WP:CANVASS your notification must be neutrally worded - Mathglot gave you a good format - and you must notify all of whatever relevant participant. That means if you notify affected WikiProjects you can not pick and choose. If you are notifying editors from a previous AfD you must notify all of them not just those you think would support your position. Jbh ^Talk 06:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Verdy p

User Verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:Assume good faith and WP:EDITWAR on the Rockall article and Talk:Rockall. They have ignored and deleted a correctly referenced statement in the intro at least three times today and made inappropriate comments about other editors on the article Talk page. Warnings about this behaviour have been ignored. David J Johnson (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious breach of WP:3RR I'd like to draw attention to this edit. Baseless accusations of racism, whether implicit or explicit, should not be tolerated. nagualdesign 19:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think their reverts fall outside the 24 hour window for a 3RR violation, but taken together with their talk page behaviour they do seem to have a problem comprehending Wikipedia’s approaches and policies, leading to frustration and incivility.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, they breached 3RR. But what's more troubling is they are edit-warring against four other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 above. Verdy p, this ongoing edit war that you've been carrying out on Rockall is exactly what you should not be doing... Had I noticed this a few hours earlier rather than right now, I would have blocked your account for edit warring. The fact that you've stopped editing just shy of a few hours ago puts you at the very edge within a hair's breadth of this activity being considered as "in progress" versus "it's stopped now, and a block isn't necessary". Your repeated failure to interact and communicate within compliance of Wikipedia's civility policy is very concerning - especially when I see a response such as this one. It really sends the message to me that you have a very strong point of view regarding this subject (and possibly the topic). When you tell other editors that if they don't support your thoughts that they're intolerant and discriminatory against cultures, ethnic groups, and the handicapped - that's extremely unacceptable and worrisome to me, and it's caused me to lose confidence that you can be trusted to follow Wikipedia's policies and respect them consistently at this time. Because of this, I've revoked your pending changes reviewer user rights. I don't feel confident right now, given this evidence, that you can sufficiently hold them. You're on a final warning basis - you are expected to stop edit warring, and you are expected to interact with others and comply with Wikipeida's civility policies. Failure to do so will result in action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not start the edit war, I was directly opposed arguments that were absolutely not reltaed top tghe facts exposed (reduse to read, just consider imperfect English style or knowledge as sufficient to ignore all) was harrassing and an exposed kind of insult. inor questions of style (which cvan be corrected constructiuvely and cooperatively) and used to ignore facts.

I just demonstrated that there were contradictions between the article and the sources it used. How to explain that ? Short or long answers are all ignored, the number of facts exposed, differnt ways of saying it, causes all this to be ignored. Yes I was insulted personnally and I'm not the initiator of this anticonstructive, antipersonal behavior. I was complaining against this attitude, I should not have been the one victim of further measures. Even the simple fact of exposing a "source needed" in the article was also reverted, the fact of marking that there's a contestable (unprooven) statements in an article (even if there are sources, which here don't match) should not be seen as an edit war but really as constructive. verdy_p (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"user's incivility and edit warring": I am not the one that has made edit war. And I'm not the one that used incivility, and I complained against the user affirming this, using false statements and personal jusgements about me. He wanted to ignore the facts, and wanted opposed only minor linguistic form (a minor aspect that can be corrected collaboratively but not required for discussion), and did not want to read anything. There was a contradiction and the contradiction remains in the article and the alleged sources (that are themselves contradicting, and are read selectively, i.e. severely biased against NPOV). verdy_p (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having been away from this discussion for two days, I note that verdy p is still arguing both here and on the article Talk page, although not in the article itself. It appears that they have taken no notice of two administrators warnings here. David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"although not in the article itself" ??? The article itself is not the place where this can be discussed, and the article talk space was appropriate according to current conventions. I do not understand at all your counter-intuitive precision here. Basically you're affirming here that there's no suitable place then to discuss the issue (by me, you, or anyone else), and not even here where I was personnally cited with other people making their own personal judgements and giving their opinion. If someone cites me explicitly here and adds his opinion, I have a legitimate right to answer it at the same place. verdy_p (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read and understood the two administrators comments above? It certainly appears you have not. The article Talk page is the correct venue for a constructive discussion, but not for the type of allegations you have made against other experienced editors. David J Johnson (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I discover your comment only now. But I oppose the false argumen,ts tghat have been used against me ("incivility" was a legitimate remark about the fact my level of English does not satisfy some other wikipedians. Another argument was "assume good faith" opposed to me, where it is evident that my edits were evidently made in good faith and respecting others. I have not made personal claims agaisnt any user, but my remark was exact that many legitimate users on this wiki are barred illegitimately, their edits are simply dropped compeltely. And it is true that even posting a comment on a talk page is not admitted. This wiki is "owned" by a few people on this wiki that can decide what is relevant for them and then block others from even commenting their decision, so they have NOT accepted that this wiki is a collaborative and open project which progresses only by slow progressions where people help each other to fix the issues, rather than battling and deleting all they don't like (meaning these few people are just abusing their position and are not respecting others, making mass deletion and not respecting the work made by others in plain good faith).

I gave sources, they were deleted it was not possible to progress and satisfy the so-called "golden rules". Impossible to negotiate and reach any form of agreement with these few users. The revenge they took against me was unfair, and demosntrates that Wikipedia lacks a real collective governance, when a few people can decide and threaten evry one else without discussion (and then no one will even try to contest their decisions, because they also threaten other people and post false/uyndemonstrated allegations against legit users using good faith and trying to reach some form of agreement with others. As soon as these overpowered users start doing these threats, almost all other wikipedians refrain of commenting or giving support to the poeple that are ejected unfairly. The rest of peopel just follow blindly, and prefer voting a "+", just to try gain some "trust" from the few power users (but in fact these power users do not respect any one and don't care at all about the people that initially voted blindly in favor of their action). And If I cannot give this opinion on Wikipedia, this jsut shows that Wikipedia goals are simply fake and not respected at all by these power users, that have siliently changed the rules and continue to plague this wiki with their mass deletions (so they are doing exactly the same thing as spammers: abusing a power privilege is destroying the reputation of this wiki, and easily explains why Wikipedia has now a so bad reputation, and over time it is worsening. Wikipedia is no longer free at all and not cooperative at all. There are better places on the web, and many users have fled Wikipedia for other safer places (even Facebook is better for them, though I prefer the level of trust we can get on commercial projects: it's much easier to use our freedom and be respecte'd in GitHub, Facebook, Twitter, and even most commercial news sites and educational sites). Wikipedia is no longer alone on the web, and we can get better info elsewhere. It is constantly eroding its audience, its voting system is also very skewed and abused by power users that can freely drop all negative votes just to force pass their decisions. Another problem is that past decisions are never checked back later they are irremedialy frozen in the history, no one can review the past (and as well the privacy rules of Wikipedia are not respected, personal data are kept indefinitely without permission, including past decisions that were later found to be wrong: these bad decision are kept and archived, but not the fact they were cancelled: the bad decision remain public indefinitely). And I could not even get any independant review: there's no working "ombudsman" system. verdy_p (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at List of Death in Paradise episodes

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 Kaos Edward Nick (talk · contribs) continues his editing behavior after his block has expired. Although I believe that it is vandalism (sneaky vandalism), I respect that the blocking admin at the time declared it to be disruptive editing only, so I'm reporting it here instead of AIV. --Richard-DIP (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Yes, it's disruptive editing, to include unsourced speculation, not vandalism. The editor's contributions appear to be well-intentioned, but misguided, and they're not communicating. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion - Thank you. It's obvious that edits like adding a season that could possibly be broadcast in 2020 and calling it "final season" are disruptive editing (unsourced speculation), but sometimes it is difficult for me to tell if an edit like adding figures, e.g. the average number of viewers to a season that not even has been broadcast completely (diff) is sneaky vandalism (in the sense of adding plausible misinformation to articles), or disruptive editing only, especially as this varies between different language versions of Wikipedia. --Richard-DIP (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2018 (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.

Accidentally blocked a user instead of posting a warning

I accidentally blocked User:Navaneeth Prince instead of giving them a warning about getting blocked for NOTHERE. I'm not sure how to fix this, please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Simply unblock them, apologise, and leave a note on the unblock saying it was an error? Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Since they gave "Its my dream to be on Wikipedia and everyone should know about me / My dreams is to be a famous and good person so i need this page please help me" as a reason for contesting a blatant U5, one wonders if Dodger67 wasn't right in the first place... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked, should I post the warninng I originally intended or would that be overkill? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah leave a note rather than a template, along the lines of "very sorry to have blocked you, but I must warn you that..." etc. That way your original message doesn't get lost, and, if they're merely under a misapprehension as to what WP is for, this will allow them the opportunity to adjust their behaviour acordingly. Good luck! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: sorry, should've pinged. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"...a note rather than a template..." is always good advice. Templates are useful for pro-forma warnings for juvenile, simple vandalism where you expect them to be blocked anyways. For anything else, it is better to engage in dialogue with an intent to educate the new user. --Jayron32 16:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

YahwehSaves block evasion

User:YahwehSaves was blocked indef Oct 17, 2017 primarily for edits to the Audie Murphy articles. He also was frequently editing Matt Urban, Llewellyn Chilson and a number of military articles. His primary interest in the military articles is the medal count and service history. His last appeal for an unblock was denied Oct 22, 2017. It has been brought to my attention that IP 205.155.236.89 is YahwehSaves evading his block since Oct 28, 2017, and eventually this IP began making similar/identical edits on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson. The IP has now done numerous edits to Garlin Murl Conner and other military articles. As of this morning, YahwehSaves is definitely evading his block with IP 75.79.31.20 (already known to be his IP). There are so many articles and edits by 205.155.236.89 since January, that it seemed to be the shorter path to report him here, rather than individual diffs at SPI. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff of him editing his own talk page. Seems fairly clear-cut.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - I've blocked 205.155.236.89 for three months and blocked 75.79.31.20 for 36 hours for block evasion - are there edits or cleanup needed beyond the edits I see here from the IP that are latest revisions? How much needs fixing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Garlin Murl Conner is on the watchlist of the article's creator, and I've already linked this thread to their talk page. Looking at the history of Llewellyn Chilson, it's being watched by Roam41 who is known to me as someone with more knowledge of the subject matter than I have. I placed a notice at WP Military History about soldier Henry Johnson, because I am not familiar with that. I'll check Chattanooga High School myself. While 75.79.31.20 seems to me to be a designated ISP account for a given user, 205.155.236.89 comes up as USC-Long Beach Chancellor's Office. So, thanks for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - Sure, you bet. Let me know if you need my help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have been a contributor to Henry Johnson, I looked it over and performed a restore to prior to this IP's edits. The only contributor in the middle of those edits was me. It also appears that inactive user Shade Ruff was another sock of YahwehSaves. Scr★pIron^IV 18:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with both YahwehSaves and Shade Ruff. I have had several positive and polite interactions with the latter. Although he has a similar editing style, I don’t feel Shade Ruff is a sock of YahwehSaves. However, I do strongly agree that IP 205.155.236.89 is one. Roam41 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, 75.79.31.20 seems to have been used by YahwehSaves at least since 2012,[41] so I think the block needs to be more than 36 hours. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

No, on second thoughts I've blocked for a year. Compare Vanjagenije's 6-month block in 2016. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen - Sounds good. Thanks for looking and for extending as needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a username block as well? I, and I'm sure many others find that username might violate policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can call that username a policy violation, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

IP editor 82.9.47.145 - futurology

On sports related pages vandalised articles for example next season of UEFA CL. 3 month block from editing articles. --5.172.234.170 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging, editing and insulting by Dennis Bratland

This user has been placing spurious tags on the Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster‎ article. They were deleted by two users, but he keeps replacing them.

• [42]
• [43]

Tags removed justly by 2 editors: [44], [45]

Tags reinstroduced by Dennis B: [46]

Dennis keeps introducing a poor-quality opinion article from "Futurism" alerting that the car may cause a Kessler syndrome, but the car is not even in Earth orbit to do that. [47].

I explained to him repeatedly Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#Car is not in Earth orbit but in heliocentric orbit that the car is no longer in Earth orbit, so it does not form part of "Earth orbit junk", but cosmic junk (or Solar System Junk) so it is not falling on Earth. He posts long messages evading the fact and insisting that he has to introduce what amounts to an alternative view, which is in fact a FRINGE view.

He placed a 3RR warning in my talk page and refuses to acknowledge the car is no longer in Earth Orbit so it cannot be "Earth orbit junk" or cause a Kessler cascade. User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

After I added more references to the effect that the car is Solar System junk (not Earth junk), he called me "drunk".User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

He is simply disruptive, and insulting. And I am out of ideas on how to explain to him that a single fringe report (on an object that is not even there) has no place. Thanks BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This person has been editing since 2006 yet they are offended that they got a 3rr warning after making 3 reverts in a row? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting spurious tags and alarmist and ridiculous cheap sources is expected under any circumstance. Your obtuse behavior and insults are not. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You’ve come to ANI to complain about behavior that is identical to your own. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected. The proper place to take this discussion is right here - You two need to properly discuss the content issue and which tags belong and don't belong, and come to an agreement. When you two have done so, let me know so that I can remove the gold lock from the front gate. C'mon... look past the frustration and work together and sort this out... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The dispute over mentioning fears of space collision was resolved when BatteryIncluded added some other source to represent that point of view. I'm not particularly about who we cite for that, only that we give due weight to those who have those concerns. I started an RfC to resolve the dispute over integrating the media reaction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, BatteryIncluded: So... this means that I can unprotect the page now, right? And no more edit warring is going to happen there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis is still warring in the talk page with other editors. Id say another week or two. Thanks. BatteryIncluded

"Replying" to other editors is now "warring"? Talking it out is how we avoid edit warring. At some point BatteryIncluded's bizarre accusations are going to have to come back and bite him. I'm still wondering if he's going to go on harassing me with his demand to acknowledge that 'the car is not orbiting the Earth.' No matter how many times I've answered yes, he keeps coming back and haranguing me with the same question. When he pasted a duplicate copy of the same text and citations into the article, and I tried twice to inform him of his error (without reverting him), he continued to miss the point, and instead go off on tangential attacks. There's a competence issue here that should be dealt with. He's going to go right back to the article and attack other editors because he fails to comprehend the basic meaning English words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I think you should unlock the page; there are other editors who want to work on contents, independently of the dispute between Bratland and Battery. If those two can't come to an agreement peacefully, then block them, not the article. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG - I agree; here you go -  Done.~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, same page, same editor, Special:Diff/825217523 edit summary "Somebody wants to edit war again. How it works: you have revered once. Now I put it back (1st revert). You revert a 2nd time (keep count!), I put it back (2nd). You revert a third time (you're done!) I revert, #3. WP:3RR kicks in. Please discuss, OK?". (Most other editors appear to be doing their constructive best to operate at 0RR or 1RR). —Sladen (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

…and in the time it took to write the above… Same page, same editor, Special:Diff/825220019, another revert, reverting yet another editor: edit summary "see if it's OK for you do just mash the revert button, then it's OK for me to just mash the revert button. Don't like edit wars? Don't revert. Please discuss". Time for WP:NOTHERE to kick in? —Sladen (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait, Sladen. I made a compromise edit, as suggested in the discussion on integrating the response section, per WP:BRD. You decided to simply revert -- you clobbered the compromise and stuffed the non-official Tesla messages down in the "responses" ghetto/garbage dump. I had tried a new tack, you revered. You reverted. You did that. You edit warred. And then when I said, "OK, you want to edit war, then I'll edit war too", you came here to complain? If you don't approve of edit warring, then why did you revert my edit? If it's OK to revert, then what exactly is so bad about what I did? I'm asking you again: stop reverting, and discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, please post WP:DIFFS so it is easier to follow and review. —Sladen (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See my objection to demand for diffs from Dennis below. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If diffs cannot be easily found, hopefully Dennis Bratland may be able to strike sentences 3–7, 9 & 11. —Sladen (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Attitude seems quite combative and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy to me based on what I've seen over at Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Article locked again due to edit warring between himself and others (not breaking 3RR technically, but still disruptive and assuming bad faith on everyone else). Beyond what I would say is constructive in civil discourse. Needs to calm down but instead just jumped back in swinging. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• It would look much different if this were any other topic. Tesla and SpaceX and Musk are touchy subjects around here. Elon Musk's life and adventures have such devoted fans on Wikipedia that any attempt to tone it down incites an angry mob. Note how offended some editors are about reputable media describing Musk as a master brand manager, showman, and marketer. Reliable sources complement Musk for being brilliant at his actual job, leading his companies to profits, and his fans are incensed because it deflates their image of him as a fearless, chill dude who loves to have fun. If you read the talk page, you'll see more than one editor who did agree with my agenda at various points, simply making the article encyclopedic and not a SpaceX mash note. It's just that few of them want to stick around and keep thanklessly fighting with the Musk fans. One editor does stand his ground and these spurious WP:BATTLEGROUND accusations get tossed around. If the others who agreed with me had been there to mash the revert button, you'd not be able to scapegoat me so easily.

  Honestly, a lead that summarize the content of the article is not unreasonable. Why the instant reverts when I attempt to address that? What drives such a reaction? If my edit wasn't quite neutral enough, anyone could have tuned it to be more neutral. But they deleted it all. Why are they not accused of using Wikipedia as a battleground? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen nobody agreeing with you Dennis. It is you against "Evil Wikipedia". You assume bad faith from anyone who dares edit your content. Enough. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, these kind of ANI antics are going to lead to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. Your accusations are false. I have sought compromise. I have agreed to compromise even when it wasn't what I really wanted. When it was clear I could not get an integrated response structure, I agreed with another editor's suggestion that we could keep the response section and only summarize it in the other parts of the article. I attempted to do that by adding a summary to the lead. When another editor offered a compromise version of that wording, I agreed with them. You accuse me of only seeing bad faith in others and that is obviously a false accusation. Yes, I reverted other editors, but only in direct response to them reverting me. I used the talk page to work out issues and you described my talk page discussion as "warring". Another false accusation.

As I've said, I don't take seriously anyone who accuses me of misdeeds when my acts are direct copies of what they did. You, for example. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• On principle I'd rather not see billionaire's explanations of their publicity appear in lede paragraphs. So on that point I agree with Dennis. On principle I'd rather not see widely viewed articles locked at all, least of all for 72 hours, due to a two-party dispute. So on that point I agree with neither of the two parties nor the admin who applied the lock.

Here's the thing. We've got at least 10,000 views and up to 90,000 views on this thing which makes it look at first glance that making it correct is the most important thing. However, locking opportunities for new WP users to contribute is not a good thing even at the expense of some quantum of correctness. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that this project has to attract & retain new people to stay alive. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

All good reasons to focus on the real event -- the Falcon Heavy Test Flight -- and not even create a separate article about the lurid sideshow, the use of a car as ballast. Popularity defeated the idea of keeping them merged, yet popularity makes editing all the more difficult. Even so, the page would not be locked if WP:BRD had been observed. BRD says not to revert. Instead of nuking changes, adjust them to address problems with wording, sourcing, or neutrality. A few editors here feel they themselves aren't guilty of edit warring not because they didn't revert and revert and revert, but because they perceive themselves to have a solid majority. BatteryIncluded has chosen to be literally blind to the posts from editors who supported my arguments yet didn't hang around endlessly pressing the issue because they (naturally) have better things to do. I'm not asking for perfection: I have been open to compromise and I have accepted compromises. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Could you please unlock the article, so that other editors can keep working? Any remaining content disputes can be resolved by discussion. If some editors keep edit-warring, they should be admonished or temporarily blocked; locking the article is detrimental to rapid article improvement given intense reader interest and the need to correct initial impressions with newer and dispassionate coverage. Thanks for your attention. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:Judging by what I see here, it would be better to wait a bit. It may be more blocks will e coming. Oshwah or any other admin familiar w/ this discussion can unprotect if they see it's OK. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like warring editors are now discussing article contents here at ANI instead of on the article talk page. Not a good outcome… — JFG ^talk 07:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Process time-out Dennis has been demanded to provide diffs to, in effect, prove his innocence, and I object to this. I think he's adequately explained why his introduction of advert and povfork tags, shown by the diffs at the very top of the case, was justified. He has also explained that his subsequent edits were attempts not to revert but to introduce new consensus text. If this is problematic, he should be provided diffs showing why, not the other way around. And it shouldn't be focused on a testy edit summary but the substance and his understanding of correct procedure. Ya, the edit summary was "not ideal" but we don't apply 72 hour locks because of that. I hope. Nor unnecessary chiding of a productive and valued long-term editor.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this case is a good example of why ANI is seen as a kangaroo court by many. Also why I rarely participate because I'm pretty sure just mentioning that will start a new cyclone of reaction. Not what is intended – read it as "drama board" if you prefer. I invite a competent administrator to back this up and provide some positive leadership not just hand out blocks and locks, but a reduction in drama and personality-driven scrutiny.

To the competent administrator who I hope joins here. What do you want to see as an outcome? Because he's been dragged here to explain himself, then in effect punished for speaking: "warring editors are now discussing article contents", oh no. Do you want Dennis to say "I won't call people mister poopy face" and go to the kindergarten corner? Do you want good contributors to stay here? Do you want new ones to come? These discussions have consequences. People can and do quit over feeling they are held to have irredemable shortcomings. Please think about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: If you are referring to the full protection on the article about Musk's space car, it was protected for 48 hours after a request was made at RFPP to slow down the edit war disruption. It had been protected and unprotected earlier by Oshwah due to the edit warring. It has nothing to do with any edit summary and it certainly was not done to "punish" any user. I protected for only a short period of time to avoid inconveniencing the non edit warring editors of that page. I do agree it would be better to discuss the merits of the competing versions on the talk page rather than continuing this debacle. There was a discussion ongoing last I looked. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bri:, an editor made an (unsupported) statement on WP:ANI that "$another_editor reverted"^{Special:Diff/825221142}. It order to test such an assertion for accuracy it is necessary to know the precise edit. Without this basic opportunity for oversight and to test unsupported statements, then Wikipedia's oversight would indeed become a Kangaroo court.^{Special:Diff/825280534} This is not something we want. —Sladen (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC) …an editor that tends to keep revert reserved for vandalism.

Guys, I'm going to reply elliptically because I really don't want to get into a diff war with anybody. Could you try thinking about the emotive content of what I wrote, instead of rebutting. Compare these two lists of words:

• Punitive, emotive, judgmental, absolutist, guarded, rigid
• Welcoming, self-correcting, accommodating, honest, authentic, creative

Which space would we all rather be a part of? Which space would new contributors rather be a part of? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

An honest one? —Sladen (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like a work space where users extend WP:AGF to admins when they do not understand or agree with their admin actions. Honestly, I do not know of any admin who is not honest. I may disagree some of with my colleagues. I may find their online persona's abhorrent. I may even think some of them are too big for their britches. I do not question their honesty or that they, by their own lights, are working to better Wikipedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, … can't see anywhere in which an admin's honesty has been questioned. What was requested: an editor (whose username appears in the title of this sub-section) was asked to provide evidence (in the form of a diff) to back up an unsupported statement made regarding (alleged) actions of yet another editor. Special:History/Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster covers the history of the article and shows what edits were made—a review of which does not yield an obvious match. An useful course of action in such a situation is to invite an editor to supply diffs, or allow those statements to be amended/struck, followed by a re-evaluation of the resulting courses of actions (if deemed necessary). —Sladen (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: Yeah. Sorry. Thanks. Not directed at you. Must have misparsed comment made by someone else. (Sometimes the eyes jump from line to line.) Striking as it was pretty ranty and off topic. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sladen, here. I expanded the lead to mention content from all of the article, correcting the exclusions non-SpaceX points of view. You reverted that, restoring the lead to a SpaceX soapbox, from primary sources or from secondary sources that merely parrot the divine revelations falling from Musk's lips. I give you credit for not doing a wholesale revert of my entire edit; you did leave the other sections of the article alone. But you did kick off the edit war over whether or not the lead could include any points of view other than Musk and Spacex, which resulted in page protection.

OK? You have your diff. Please do not carry on a further debate over whether you did or did not do something unless there is a point to it. And by point I mean some ANI-related purpose. What are you asking for here? What is your goal? Not bickering. Scroll up and read "Are you in the right place?" Is there anything on that list that you are requesting be done? State what it is you want, and cite your diffs for why it is justified. I don't see "striking sentences" on that list. If that's the only reason you're here, then we're done, aren't we? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Berean_Hunter (Redacted)

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.

---

Forgive me if this is not the way to go about this, but I don't think this is an oversight issue since it was only a threat of outing. On this discussion, the user inferred I had a conflict of interest, and implied that they were aware of my supposed affiliations. I perceive this as a threat to divulge personal information, in violation of the harassment policy regarding outing. Specifically the lines "...reflects that conflict of interest, now doesn't it? I know that it does. I think that you also have another COI by pushing the agenda of a known group trying to effectuate changes for their purposes." and " Would that be a "those guys over there"? ...or maybe you could select a pronoun that would be more fitting and less disingenuous in its presentation. If "they" are against it then "they" don't have any business trying to sway the community here without revealing who "they" are." seem to be a veiled hint at information this user believes they know about me. This was also clearly part of an attempt to influence editing behavior, as the first post in this line of discussion ended with "You won't be doing any more of these changes. Let it go." I believe this not only clearly constitutes harassment according to WP's outing policy, but is an inappropriate form of intimidation. TylerRDavis (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where Berean Hunter has such personal information, or where they threatened to divulge it. Now, I do see where he seems to be over-interpreting the situation by claiming that you have a defined conflict-of-interest, however I also believe that you are currently doing the same thing in the other direction; by taking his non-specific statements about believing you have a conflict-of-interest to mean that he intends to violate WP:OUTING. We can't base our actions on what we believe to be the underlying intents of people who have not actually acted. While that means that he shouldn't be blocking you for a COI without evidence of such, it also means you shouldn't be accusing him of abusing his tools until he actually abuses them. --Jayron32 17:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Without divulging such information here, I can tell you that he is implying that he knows about where I work, and possibly other affiliations. By sarcastically using "they" he is implying that it's a group I belong to, which is meant to imply that he knows something about me. If there is a private setting in which I can discuss the information I strongly believe he is implying he knows, I would love to do so. TylerRDavis (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what we're telling you is that your strong belief is not evidenced by his writing here at Wikipedia. We can't act on your beliefs, anymore than he can act on his beliefs that you have a COI. --Jayron32 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TylerRDavis: I have removed the unsubstantiated claim in the header. You need to provide diffs of the specific edit where this alleged threat occurred. The quote you provide does not show a threat and does not threaten you with WP:OUTING. It is not the best way to handle a COI accusation. In my opinion they should have said "your edits since returning from your five year break seem to be pushing the agenda of X. If you have any affiliation with X please see Wikipedia's Guidance with editing when you have a conflict of interest." (since the issue has been raised you should read WP:COI regardless) That said, Berean Hunter may have been a bit ham-handed, and should not have said they know you have a COI, they did not, in my opinion, threaten you. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 13 February 2018 (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 68.22.85.66

Persistent, multiple-occurrence disruptive editing, indicated here and here. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism, you can always report these events to AIV as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Test of WIkipedia's academic rigor

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 User talk:2601:283:C000:69D9:3475:DF0D:F0BF:AF7A, 2601:283:C000:69D9:3475:DF0D:F0BF:AF7A (talk · contribs) claims they've been testing Wikipedia's academic rigor. While I'm pretty sure we don't have any and aren't a reliable source for academic purposes, I mention this because Wikipedia is being accused by that editor of having a left-bias, possibly being racist (as race was raised, though racism was not specifically alleged), and because it appears to me that this user has been deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I will notify the involved admins in a moment. My suggestion, though I haven't looked closely, is that the admins are blameless, that the anonymous user is deliberately harming Wikipedia to prove a point, and that there may be some WP:BLOCK evasion going on here which may need to be addressed. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe them about a rigorous study, I think they're simply trolling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked, TPA revoked. Trolling. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just the standard run of the mill drivel from someone who wants to dictate to Wikipedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. See you at tonight's Worker's Reading Group? I'm bringing cabbage. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (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.

Temporary block request for user Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 any of the administrators review this recently created user Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his offensive remarks as well as continuous removal of my work on Kielce Pogrom page, thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why that article needs repeated parenthetical remarks emphasizing that Poland was under Communist rule in 1946. That looks like POV pushing to me, GizzyCatBella. Why should we block an editor who is trying to correct POV pushing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Not really, I believe you question the name change for police authorities in Poland in 1946 to Milicja Obywatelska (Civic Militia). (Am I correct?) It’s not a POV pushing in any way, Civic Militia was an official name at the time. Please also consider all of my edits to the page before making such an unjust accusation. Please also notice that above freshly generated user has only 3 edits to his record, all bulk reverts on one page, one article, noting “Poles and their disgusting whitewashing... “ If that is an acceptable course of conduct then what isn’t?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if anything looks like a POV-pushing to you please make changes to the related wording or advise Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do the above. By performing volume reverts, he is also damaging link repairs I have done. I’m not going to continue spending my time toward improving this article anymore. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I left Musicpassion418 a note and let them know about this discussion. If one looks at their edit summaries-- I left them a note. Has not edited since. @GizzyCatBella: It might be better to invite the user to discuss their concerns and your own on the article talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't make any conversation efforts with Musicpassion418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because I believe it is a ghost account created solely for the goal of reverts to article. He appears to be well familiar with editing methods, so I also believe that the person behind that newly created name is an established editor, conscious of his inappropriate behaviour. But thank you for your effort to resolve this issue.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (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.

---

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.

---

When people can carry on merrily vandalising for over an hour after being reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism some of us wonder if there's any point reporting. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I will dock the pay of the duty admins. They have breached SLA. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll return my Christmas bonus this year... --Jayron32 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary closing statement Tony. "Backlog cleared" would have been better. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary initial statement by Duncan "There's a backlog at AIV" would have been better. If you're going to give shit, you can't complain when shit comes back your way. --Jayron32 02:51, 15 February 2018 (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.

Wouldn't have got the effective response my message did get though. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You know, making a joke and then going off and dealing with the backlog is a good way to deal with a post like mine. It's the sort of behaviour that gets thanks and encourages people to do what they can about vandalism. Telling demoralised people they are in the wrong place while making no effort to say what the right place is just stops people trying. Telling people they deserve shit just makes them think you're trying to stir it up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't paying attention. Was too busy dealing with reports at AIV. Were you saying something important? --Jayron32 03:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much of a twat an admin is, you must never call him one. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2018 (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.

Qwertywander

Per a suggestion by our learned friend Newyorkbrad I propose to add user:Qwertywander to the list of banned users due to long term abuse.

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Qwertywander
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertywander / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertywander/Archive
• Sockpuppetry requiring protection on numerous articles e.g. Ahom kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Example: Barua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the sockpuppetry resumes less than 72 hours after protection expires

There is no need to respond unless you dispute this outcome, a user with this kind of history of abuse s normally considered de facto banned unless there is some compelling reason otherwise. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, do that. --Jayron32 13:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Scbritton

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

---

I'd like him unblocked, he got pissed off, we all do, he got stubborn, we all do. Newbie who don't quite get our ways, we are meant to be colloquialYa, give this one a chance Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To return to edit warring? [48] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Who hasn't? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying it's okay to break WP:3RR if you think you're right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Feck off man, I'm saying a newbie fucks up, we all have done that Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, we haven't all been blocked for screwing up, newbies or not. The key thing is if they realize they screwed up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I think he's saying that Scbritton had "served their time" for edit warring, and the increase to an indef block without talk page access was overboard, considering they hadn't edited anything since the block expired. I'd like to hear from User:JzG, who should have been notified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a response to this diatribe, but I have no problem if people want to give him a second chance. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats the pissed off part i mentioned, can't let J know due to protection? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would match our way of doing things more to unblock, give them a final piece of advice about edit warring, and let them decide whether to retire, resume editing without edit warring, or resume editing and edit war some more, and then get blocked indef. Since Guy is OK with this, do you mind, NeilN? If not, I'll just do it now and save some electrons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: No, I was writing up something similar but it's better coming from you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK then, thanks, I've unblocked. I'll leave that "final piece of advice about edit warring" I mentioned above in a little bit; I need late afternoon chocolate first, and I type slowly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm fine with that if you think he's likely to be worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate it guys, hopefully I've not just shot me bollocks off Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope not either - who'd clear up the mess? ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

is it appropriate for me to inject my thoughts here as well, since I am the subject of this particular discussion? Scbritton (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scbritton: Yes, you are free to provide your input here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. Below are my queries. I'm not trying to defend myself, but, rather, make some points regarding things that were said and clarify things that were said to me.

1. When the 24 hour block was imposed, the comment was, "pull a stunt like this again and expect a much longer block." I'd like to know: (a) what "the stunt" you were referring to is (and yes, I followed the link),
(b) whether the block was over 3RR or over whatever else the "stunt" could be; and,
(c) do you believe that the "pull a stunt" statement was made calmly and with civility?

2. I'd like to know what, exactly, was wrong with the "diatribe" (as described by others rather than me. I was expressing frustration with Wikipedia and the perception that was created resulting from the situation to begin with) - the indefinite block said something about personal attacks and inappropriate usage of Talk Page. Since I didn't mention anyone by name in that paragraph,
(a) who was attacked and how were they attacked; and
(b) What other purpose does a talk page serve other than ... well, talking to people?

3. Mediation and/or independent third-party input might be in order with regard to the original dispute. Where, how, and who do I talk to about that?
Scbritton (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I will address my "stunt" comment. You were blocked by a different admin for edit warring at the same time I was looking at the report. We semi-regularly get editors trying to foul up edit warring reports. If that was not your intention with this edit then I apologize but I'm at a loss at how you could have made that edit following the board's instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to file a new report against the editor who was reporting me, as I believed it was that editor who was engaging in the edit war. The template on the page was convoluted and difficult to understand, so I opened up the page, copied the other editor's report, pasted it in a new section (or so I thought) with the updates to show it as a filing by myself against them. Clearly something went wrong - either through my error or otherwise.

1b: It was over edit warring. Reversing someone else's edit warring report didn't exactly help, either. 2a: When others gang up on an editor to force/impose their will on a user is attacking the good-faith editors on that page and showing a distinct lack of understanding of WP:Consensus. 3:See WP:STICK. You already got input from multiple editors, and pretty much everyone has indicated you were wrong. There's a time to play Captain America, and a time to realize that maybe, just maybe, you're missing something. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. It was over edit warring; and I disagree with your assessment about my statement "when others..." since the term "others" is vague and mentions nobody by name. If I had listed off the editors who did the reversions, I would be more inclined to agree with you on that. My understanding of the NPOV tag was based on what I read from the instructions - if you believe a section of an article to not be neutral, you add the tag and open a section in the talk page to discuss it, outlining your reasons and why. It was reverted before I even got the talk page section completed, which is what annoyed me to begin with.

If I had listed off the editors -- considering that everyone here has access to page edit histories, and can see exactly to whom you're referring, this strikes me as a bit disingenuous. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That is assuming that casual readers of my talk page, on a post which did not reference the article in question to begin with, would expend the time and energy required to search out the article in question and look up the editors to whom I was referring. You may see that differently, which, I suppose, is your right, but I believe there are sufficient layers of obscurity that only someone with nothing better to do and lots of time on their hands would bother to do that. I mean, really, does it matter who it was and where it happened? The fact is I was frustrated and expressing that frustration, which is what Darkness Shines was talking about.Scbritton (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note that the edit warring was not the only problem. This editor was engaging disruptively at Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive_3#Alt-right_in_lede_(revisited). They are welcome to try again, of course, but it's worth noting that they've made a rather poor first impression among a wider swathe of editors than are present in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

that was 6 months ago and the comments were on the talk page because I was attempting to reach WP:CONSENSUS after my edit was reverted with a one word descriptor which stated, "No." (again, to someone who makes a good faith edit, very terse, unhelpful, and frustrating). If defending a point of view is suddenly interpreted as "disruptive" then there's a deeper underlying problem at play than my actions.

Also: really? Digging up something that happened that long ago, consisted of a conversation on a talk page in which the issues got discussed and resolved at the time and posting it here? To what purpose? Scbritton (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You taking the piss? I asked you be unblocked, why the fuck are you arguing shit here? Post to the talk page and discuss shite there man Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking questions, trying to understand what happened, Darkness. That's it; that's all.

Scbritton (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC) In any event; I've made the points I feel needed to be made. Any further discussion should probably take place on my talk page as Darkness Shines suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Page move needs undoing to allow correct page to be created

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 Hassocks & Victoria (electoral division) has been moved to Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division). This has clearly been done in good faith but has been done in error. The page Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) should be a new page instead of a page move. Can the move be undone to allow for the page history to be restored to the Hassocks & Victoria (electoral division) page, and then allow for Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) to be created as a new page. Sport and politics (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, and I'd left Hassocks & Burgess Hill South (electoral division) as a redlink to allow it to be created anew, which you've already done. Blimey that was fast. Fish+Karate 10:37, 13 February 2018 (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.

151.255.69.66

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.

---

151.255.69.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly and without any sort of explanation or discussion restoring a category that had been deleted via a deletion discussion (among other things). I tried (in vain) to get them to explain their actions but they seem unwilling to communicate why they are re-adding the categories. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

He just self-reverted here. Maybe he got the message. --Jayron32 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully so. If that's the case, then no action will be needed. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:37, 15 February 2018 (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

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

---

In this edit to Adelaide Institute, the IP User:118.210.108.139, who is apparently claiming to be Gerald Fredrick Töben, wrote in the edit summary:

Please note I deleted the following words because I have not been convicted of "Holocaust denial" - to assert this is libelous and I will initiate defamation action against anyone who continuous to assert this allegation.

. In the following edit, they wrote:

Correction of a defamatory imputation: In June 2009, a defamatory article attempted to link the Adelaide Institute with an American white supremacist, etc.

The material removed was sourced, and, if the IP is indeed Töben, their COI in regard to the article is obvious - they should not be editing it. The first edit summary is a clear legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to check with the IP to clarify that by 'defamation action' they didn't mean 'a polite request on their talk page to revert themselves'? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

More seriously, I see that the operator of the IP address in question hasn't been notified of that discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

I was in the process of doing that, and it's now done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, looks like I was just too quick off the mark! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Pro forma block --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 14 February 2018 (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.

Asking for more eyes at FixMeStick

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 have been recent attempts by Keegan-FMS (talk · contribs) and 66.131.198.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to rewrite the FixMeStick article into a marketing PR version, reading more as an advertisement rather than as an encyclopedia article. Considerable portions of the promotional versions appears to be direct copy/paste of wording from Amazon.com and FixMeStick.com. See examples of promotional versions:

• Revision as of 14:49, 31 January 2018
• Revision as of 20:59, 31 January 2018
• Revision as of 13:08, 9 February 2018
• Revision as of 17:46, 9 February 2018
• Revision as of 13:32, 15 February 2018

Both accounts have ignored posts to their user talk pages; and the IP resumed this activity again today, shortly after their prior block had expire. To their credit, the user and IP have attempted to add refs for some statements; but that doesn't resolve the marketing puffery and potential copied content in the underlying text. The most recent promotional version contained a series of "refs" at the end; however, those appear to just be the refs from the original status-quo version. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Keegan-FMS is obviously COI based on username and presumably PAID. IP geolocates to company area. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done: User and IP blocked. Article protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Article rolled back to a version prior to the promotional editing. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 15 February 2018 (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.

Phone numbers on talk pages

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 an admin delete these revisions[49] [50] [51], and maybe block the IP [52]. Adding supposedly his phone number to my talk page, along with others[53]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirus: In the future, see WP:Oversight. They're super quick and it avoids any potential Streisand effect. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Brown just popping by to say thanks for the revdels. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Ian.thomson, he got out ahead of me cleaning up the rest of those. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You got a head start and did a lot more than me, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Racist and antisemitic troll needs blocking

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.

---

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

User:YipC has already been blocked on Commons for calling someone a "disgusting jew". Their user page here has recently been deleted at their request, but contained anti-Israel statements. Most of their uploads on Commons were copyright violations and have been deleted. A draft they created here is a cut and paste copyright violation of the reference used. They initially represented themself as a young user based in China, but contradicted that on their (now deleted) userpage. Some of their racist comments about Inidan people have been revdeleted, so I'm not sure why they haven't been blocked already. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The user page was concerning and I've deleted the copyvio draft but the only revdels I could spot were for copyright violations that they didn't commit (a large chunk of article history had to be wiped). Do you have diffs or pointers to these racist comments? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? ... I gave them a final warning a month ago and so far as far as I can see they've not repeated any of that. –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm I was the one who revdelled those edits. I was thinking about an indef but saw your final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I remember that revdel'd comment too... was it reported at ANI or something? Anyway, the diff I give below is the only thing on en-wiki I can see since the final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the comment at Commons, I've found this so far. Not "racist", but bigoted. Still looking. I'm inclined to block just for the comment on Commons, on the theory that we don't value contributions from antisemites, whether they've learned not to say bad words on WP or not, but I've received pushback on similar blocks in the past if they're not actively doing bigoted stuff in articles. Note that criticism of the Israeli government isn't antisemitic; while that page needed to be deleted for WP:POLEMIC reasons, it isn't a reason to block. Like I said, still looking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What you found was the closest I could find since the final warning. I can't find reason to block, even if I don't believe that the root attitude problem has changed. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the username sounded familiar, I recall the now-revdel'd racist comment Davey warned them for. My inclination is to block, but because the only unacceptable thing since the final warning is the mildly worded (but still bigoted) comment I link above, I'd like another opinion or two that such a block is OK, and not "censoring unpopular opinions" (which was used to criticize a similar block I made a while ago). (I guess I should be relieved that antisemitism or anti-Indian bigotry is still considered "unpopular"...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't find that diff linked above in any way acceptable, and would support a block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Framing this as "would it be nice to block?" instead of "can we block without causing trouble?" there's a pretty clear consensus. It's the other question that seems to be delaying this. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just tossing out opinions here: 1) do we normally have authority to block here for things happening on another wiki if they haven't carried over here? 2) that comment, while certainly unacceptably biased, seems like a user with an unfortunate inherent bias attempting to discuss an issue from that perspective, but in a good-faith way, of a sort. It's something that because of their bias they perceive as a problem needing to be fixed. They're wrong, but this is pretty far from a racist attack and I don't think it's blockable. The user seems to respond well to suggestions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, which comment is it that you're saying is merely "unacceptably biased" but "pretty far from a racist attack"? Is it calling an Indian IP user a "brown dog" or calling a Jewish user a "disgusting jew"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Following the conversation instead of looking for any reason to criticize, this post would be the most likely candidate for what Ivanvector is talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Moot point now I suppose, but I was referring to the one Floquenbeam linked; this one. Following the conversation it appears that the user had already been warned about all of the others, and hadn't repeated that at least on this wiki. I can't argue with Drmies' block, though, and the devil needs no advocate, least of all me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but are we really debating whether we want to keep an editor who is comfortable calling somebody a "disgusting Jew"? The fuck we do, get rid. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That is a valid question, and I answered that with an indefinite block. The editor (whose other comment I also remember) is welcome to explain themselves on their talk page in an unblock request. For now I see a consensus that we do not want an editor who used that kind of language on another project, and some "mildly bigoted" language here, after a history of trouble. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies, thank you. I support your decision to allow them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whether or not that leads to a reinstatement of their editing privileges is a matter for others to handle. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the user is probably Chinese and isn't speaking so much out of ingrained antisemitism as sheer ignorance (hateful ignorance). China just does not study the Holocaust (unlike Nanking) and views Hitler as just another dictator. The western culture class I taught gave one line out of a 400 page textbook to the Holocaust's influence (I did my best to correct this by gathering and showing as many pictures as I could find with the intention of making at least one person in the room cry). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That is interesting. So blocking etc could be an example of systemic bias! - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it's more that we need to balance community peace with the need to educate. One student who had done prior reading on it told me he heard that the Jews were put in the concentration camps because they charged interest rates, which indicates that when it is studied in China, it's from a supposedly economic perspective (because the truth would involve teaching that religion matters to some people, something the atheist PRC doesn't want people to consider). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Racism and antisemitism have no place here. It doesn't matter if it is trolling, deliberate, or ignorance. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying they do, I'm saying that if we have the opportunity to educate instead of harden those beliefs, we should. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush:I would agree with that, but hasten to add that not all biases are bad, even when they're systemic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 15 February 2018 (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.

Music category vandal needs rangeblock renewed

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.

---

NeilN blocked Special:Contributions/2601:248:C000:0:0:0:0:0/37 for a week but the block expired. The schoolgirl behind this IP range has returned to her disruption in music categories, so it would be great to see the block engaged again, for longer this time. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Two months this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2018 (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.

MfD/CSD

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 can neither MfD nor CSD the following because the pages are protected. Help!

• User:Vinaymakamanjaneya/vector.js U5
• User:Vinaymakamanjaneya/vector.css U5
• User:Agarwal.rgniyd/common.css U5
• User:Dquiambao/common.css G12

--Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that, the Dquiambao page turned up in the MfD listing at last. Cabayi (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted all of them as G6 (obviously created in error) and closed the MfDs. Thanks, ansh666 00:03, 16 February 2018 (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.

Template vandalism by Sefec

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.

---

Sefec is transcluding the article at Feces into various templates; see their short editing history doing only that (I noticed it because one of them was being used here). Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Got 'im, thanks. ansh666 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2606:A000:7F86:3300:*

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 a range block for 2606:A000:7F86:3300:*. This range is being used by the Care Bear vandal Brandon1222 (see User:EvergreenFir/socks#Care_Bears_vandal_(Brandon1222)_-_Lexington,_SC). The range geolocates to Lexington, SC. The target pages are Care Bears, Crayola, and Franklin (the turtle). Today, this user was vandalizing Franklin ([54], [55]). Note that an IP from this range was once reported (a year ago) to the Brandon1222 SPI page... the edits since then match this user's behavior. If more info is needed, ping me. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2606:a000:7f86:3300::/64 blocked six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2018 (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.

Dofhd / Planned Parenthood

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.

---

So here are three gross vandalism edits by an editor who has been around for a while. Compromised account? --JBL (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't obvious whether the account is compromised or is vandalizing on its own initiative. Note the editor has a history of on-and-off vandalism, e.g. here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions and left a warning note for the user. Let's wait to see if the user responds. At the moment, it doesn't look like compromised account to me. Alex Shih (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2018 (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.

Spammed unblock requests in range 110.54.192.0/18

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 saw Legoktm (talk · contribs) had blocked range 110.54.192.0/18. A user appears to be going through several of the IPs in that range and spamming the same unblock "request" onto each of them (if you can call them legitimate requests, as they are only the two words "unblock me" in every case). I'm not sure the history on this range; but the copy/pasted requests make WP:DUCK test easy to apply here. I thought I would ask for comments before taking any action here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:41, 15 February 2018 (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.

On Using a Personal Sandbox for Learning

I am a teacher at a high school in the United States. As part of a unit on the epistemology of Wikipedia, I teach students to edit Wikipedia. I teach students formatting (e.g. internal linking, citation, infobox, et al) as well as rules of use (verifiability, neutral point of view, etc.). Given that they are young students who make mistakes, I ask they keep all of their work in their personal sandbox until I can check it and teach them how to correct it. At the end of this project, some students publish their articles or update existing Wikipedia entries; some do not. Recently, one of my student's (ndunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sandboxes was deleted by administrator MER-C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I appealed this deletion on said administrator's talk page.

While I have not seen the sandbox in question--it was deleted before I could offer the student constructive feedback--I contend that usage of the first person and content construed as advertising does not constitute Misuse of the sandbox]. Wikipedia clearly notes that sandboxes are not held to the same standard and that certain rules do not apply to sandboxes. I have therefore used them as a learning environment, where beginners can safely learn what is and is not appropriate. I ask for clarification on using sandboxes as a teaching tool (for me) and a learning environment (for my students). If appropriate, I ask for the restoration of said student's sandbox. JediLibrarian (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The deleted sandbox was not only a blatant advert, it was a blatant cut-and-paste copyright violation from another website (this website, to be specific). As such, for legal reasons there are no circumstances under which it will be restored; Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. If someone has told you that copyright rules don't apply in the sandbox, you've been misinformed; this is a legal requirement not a Wikipedia policy, and as such we couldn't relax it even if we wanted to. If you're going to quote Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox, please do us the courtesy of reading it first, as in your own personal sandbox, you still shouldn't post nonfree copyrighted material or personal attacks/harassment, or writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The addition of promotional material is not acceptable either. is explicitly stated there. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your message clearly explains why the content was deleted, and I can take this back to the student as a teachable moment. Had a comment such as this been left on my student's talk page, we could have obviated this entire discussion. Your criticism of my own sandbox, however, does not meet this same standard. You cite a blanket violation, and I would welcome a message on my talk page clarifying what content you feel neglects to meet the standards you refer to. In addition, I would welcome a suggestion on how to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Wikipedia is well aware of systemic biases. Addressing these means empowering minority voices to grow into confident Wikipedia contributors. If a sandbox is not an appropriate place to experiment and learn, what is? JediLibrarian (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, a Sandbox is a place to practice editing, either to build a draft for later publication in the main encyclopedia, or just to practice formatting , and, whilst that and a "place to experiment and learn" are not mutually exclusive, neither are they synonymous. The former certainly should come before the latter. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also a difference between experimenting and copyright infringement, per WP:COPYVIO: copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The content cannot be restored. What relevance does bias have to this discussion? Nobody takes into account the age, gender, race, or identity of the individual when performing routine maintenance tasks. If you know the individual then these may be factors that influence you, – well at least age might, you're obviously not going to lambast a 3rd grader the same way you might a college student for posting blatant copyvios on Wikipedia – but they have no bearing on the actions we have to take – that is delete and warn. On the flipside, I'm glad you're having your students use the sandbox, – you can also use draftspace – rather than the mainspace. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, to clarify a misunderstanding, Iridescent didn't make a comment on your sandbox JediLibrarian, they were posting a quote from an information page. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There are three core aspects to being a productive contributor: (1) proficiency in written English, (2) appreciation of what an encyclopedia is, what purpose they serve, the type of information one might find within, the information you won't find in an encyclopedia and why people use them; and (3) information literacy and critical thinking (the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but you shouldn't need to refer to it.) The best use of editing Wikipedia as a teaching tool would be teaching information literacy and critical thinking -- I view the first and second points above as prerequisites. As you're a librarian, I suggest paying particular attention to sourcing -- for example you can compare some good articles to some crap ones or something like 1Lib1Ref. I strongly recommend against getting your students to write articles; the learning curve is too steep. They need to consolidate the basics first.

For what it's worth, from experience >99.9% of users who post blatant adverts (of which I have deleted about 10,000) are actually marketers and/or spammers who have zero interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Spam is spam, no matter the page name. MER-C 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the fight against "blatant adverts"; I followed Virgil Griffith's work on Wikiscanner with great interest. I'm sure "salacious edits", as Wired called them, have only increased in the decade since. Your point about the "learning curve" begs the question: Why not fix the learning curve? Over the years, I have taught about 500 students to edit Wikipedia. Those 500 students have created some beautiful entries, particularly in other languages, as those 500 students represent about 60 different cultures. Have there been hiccups? Sure--this represents a fine example. But can I think of a better way to promote Authentic learning while making the world a better place? Nope. I appreciate the discussion here. In the future, I'll have students use draftspaces, as suggested by Mr rnddude. And yes, I'll ask them to submit drafts for review and/or delete those draftspaces when finished.JediLibrarian (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not fix the learning curve - Who says it's broken? You're comparing arithmetic to algebra when comparing editing with writing. One takes more effort than the other. I'll put it this way, consider the following to be four basic levels of writing an article: (1) writing any article, (2) writing an article that will be retained, (3) writing a good article, and (4) writing a feature article. It takes maybe five minutes to achieve level 1 – pick a topic, write a few sentences, and hit save. Hours to days to achieve level 2 – pick a topic, write several complete paragraphs, use sources to back up your writing and then hit save. Weeks to achieve level 3 – pick a topic, write a complete and comprehensive article with good sources and submit it for review. Months to years to achieve level 4 – your students aren't going to encounter this, just leave it at that. From one standpoint, it could not be easier to start writing an article than it currently is. Type in the name of the article you want to write, click the link to edit, and start writing. From another, writing an article takes time, research, and ability. Not everybody is capable of, or interested in, this. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• To facilitate JediLibrarian's discussion with his/her student, why not email a copy? EEng 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because—as already pointed out—it was a verbatim cut-and-paste of this website. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

".. it was a verbatim cut-and-paste of this website This alone is a good start but not enough I think: did someone check that the student doesn't have the permission of the site? Or don't you need to? 194.174.76.21 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

• In other cases, though, I think there would be nothing wrong with e-mailing the wikitext. If there was formatting or other changes to the content, I think it's reasonable to e-mail it. I'm sure one of our resident specialists will point out that it's a copyvio to e-mail a copyvio. I'd disagree on a somewhat technical point: It may be a copyright infringement, but it's not a "copyvio" in the sense of Wikipedia policy, which governs on-wiki conduct. I would have no qualms about, for instance, photocopying an article out of a magazine and mailing it to somebody on their request, as most libraries will do. While I understand there's a bit of a difference when we're talking about using the admin tools to access deleted content, the same "copyvio" rules don't apply to this. I'm actually not aware of a policy that's quite on point here, though I think it stands to reason that there should be good cause to share deleted content via e-mail when WP:REFUND wouldn't permit its restoration, and privacy-violating material should never be provided this way (and, in fact, should be oversighted even after being deleted). Maybe there's cause for some policy provision here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• While teaching PLEASE make it a requirement for the students to blank their sandbox at the end (or when you check them you blank them. We already have a massive backlog Category:Stale userspace drafts and it takes other editors and Admins significant effort to clean up the abandoned pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Why do they need to be cleaned up? Is the internet full? Fish+Karate 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Problem with references

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

---

Hi. Checking the references of the article octamoxin We've found out that there are two references to articles that we can't verify.

• The first one is Levy J, Michel-Ber E (1966). "[Relations between the antidepressive effects of octamoxine revealed by 3 pharmacological tests and inhibition of cerebral monoamine oxidase in mice]". Thérapie (in French). 21 (4): 929–45. PMID 5925088."
• The second one is Gayral L, Stern H, Puyuelo R (1966). "[Indications and results of the treatment of mental depression by octamoxine (ximaol)]". Thérapie (in French). 21 (5): 1183–90. PMID 5976767

The problem is that these two articles have nothing to do with the withdrawal of the drug, but with "indications for use", one; and "tests on mice", the other.

Also, the reference to Dictionary of Pharmacological+Agents only mentions the drug, not the withdrawal from market.

At the same time, the link to medicinescomplete.com is broken; even using webarchive and the webcache from Google we couldn't find info.

The structure of both references (Gayral & Levy) it's the same as the ones presented in Pubmed, as if copypasted. We conclude that the author, Vanished 45kd09la13, just copied the info of the "cite" and pasted into the Wiki. He didn't show the exact page of the cite passage. We can't find the original french articles.

Thank you. StormBringer (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this probably belongs on the talk page of the article, or failing resolution there, on the reliable sources noticeboard. or you could just be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself. This board is for asking administrators to intervene in serious issues of editor conduct. Hope this helps. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"We?" What is going on here with the words We and We've? Shared account usage? Though probably, I could be wrong. I'm usually 90% wrong. Maybe I just need to eat more carrots. Bugs, help me out here.Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 06:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mayhap there is a mouse in their pocket? That pocket, there! going back to bed now as I am becoming silly -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2018 (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.

Edit conflict in Agat (computer) (violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV)

Greetings. Please, help us to solve some issues in the article Agat (computer).

An editor insists ([56]) on adding the "Reception" paragraph based entirely on a dubious publication in Byte (magazine), where an American ophthalmologist who visited the Soviet Union in 1982 and tested a new PC there describes his experience of working with what he thought was an Agat computer. However, there is a problem with that "reception", namely that it is irrelevant to the Agat. As one of key figures in Soviet computer industry and an infinitely more reliable source has explained on the pages of the PC Magazine ([57]) and elsewhere ([58]), what the foreign medic mistook for an Agat during his visit to the Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex in 1982 was a mock-up device built and used for debugging medical software (and not intended for production), i.e. it was NOT the PC described in the article (the latter would be put into production only in 1984, two years after the visit). Furthermore, the same editor who added the irrelevant "reception" put the price of the Agat at $17,000, citing the same questionable article from Byte, though that price is not supported by any other evidence whatsoever and is at odds with the official Soviet source that I have provided ([59]), where the selling price is 3,900 rubles, as well as with another source, where it is estimated at $5,000 ([60], p. 10).

So, the issues are as follows:

1. The so-called "reception", written by a person not familiar with the Agat, pre-dates the subject matter of the article and describes a different device, not the real Agat. It is, I believe, completely inappropriate to include "receptions" that have little to nothing to do with the subject, i.e. to add a reception of A into an article about B, even if the author of the reception erroneously confused A with B. Such a "reception" is extremely misleading to the reader, as it describes a different product. It needs to be removed.

2. The price cited must be the same as in official, reliable publications, the one at which the computer was sold. A single and questionable claim from Byte cannot be preferred over the official price (which I have provided along with a reference to an official source). However, the aforementioned editor removed the official data and the reference and instead restored the dubious price taken from the publication in Byte ([61]), as if the opinion of a foreign medic was more reliable than official sources and any other evidence.

I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, but to no effect, as my arguments have largely been ignored by the opposing user. Rosso Primavera (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to comment less at this noticeboard, but I would suggest that this may fall under the heading of "what administrative intervention are you requesting?" It does not yet seem to be a full-blown edit war. I have added my thoughts at the article talk page, and perhaps others could too. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What you are describing, Rosso Primavera, is a routine content dispute. We do not adjudicate content disputes at this noticeboard. We deal with obvious or persistent editor misconduct and disruption. Continue to make your case at Talk: Agat (computer). If that is not successful, there are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been seeing this slow burn on my watchlist since I originally started this article. It is a content dispute and not what this noticeboard is intended for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

User:UnteenthSense′s unethical behavior, and EW

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:UnteenthSense persistently discusses me, my alleged ulterior motives, "disruptive" nature of my edits, doing "some digging" of my record, etc, instead of discussing the merits of the article under discussion [62], [63], [64]. I find such judgmental and ad hominem attitude on the part of an editor, who was registered but a few hours (SIC) prior, highly suspicious. Please check them as a sock, possibly along with User:GodsPlaaaaan. The latter is engaged in active edit warring, against all other editors in List of United States attacks on the Syrian government during the Syrian Civil War ([65], [66] and other). Axxxion (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you feel that way. I'm a new account but not a new editor, first off and certainly not another account's sock puppet. This "persistent discussion" you refer to has occurred in one article's talk page where you have been called out by other editors. Have you considered that maybe you're not being harassed or anything of that nature, but your edits truly are disruptive? You fundamentally alter entire articles without consensus and then call foul (and report) when other editors simply call for more discussion. That is wrong. As for User:GodsPlaaaaan's "edit warring". It sounds like he wrote the article to be specifically constrained to certain actions and other editors are trying to transform it to be something else and he's attempting to keep it in its original form.UnteenthSense (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New account but not a new editor as well. The list is meant to be about intentional attacks which has been very obvious. Your entire reshaping of the list to push for the inclusion of the September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid seems to be pushing a POV. This event has already been included in the beginning of the article for a while now with the explanation that it was accidental. Pretty unfair that now that this article is getting more attention because of the Battle of Khasham that its purpose is changed. Also theres is no point in saying I've been disruptive to others when the only reverts have been against you and Selfworm. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The plain fact is that, as is clear from the article′s edit history, GodsPlaaaaan has been reverting repeatedly against three other editors, and I include the revert made ([67]) originally by User:Editor abcdef, who possibly belongs to same editor.Axxxion (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the venue for that discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did revert an addition on the article 6 days ago. I have since changed my mind and agree on listing all attacks in the article, not just intentional ones. I absolutely do not appreciate this pointless accusation. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2018 (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.

Editting war and possible sockpuppets abuse

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.

---

Recently I made two normal edits (see this one and that one) to the article Macau order of precedence in which I added an "unreferenced" template and created the "references" section which is definitely normal given this article cites no sources. Nevertheless, several IP users(i.e. 101.15.5.141, 49.216.208.51, 101.10.33.190 and 180.204.70.3 all of which are single-purpose users) have been continuously trying to undo my edits. These IP users are likely to be sockpuppets the same person. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I can protect the article if you like, but it would probably be a good idea if you got yourself a regular ID as well. Deb (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Deb:Hey Deb, can you help deal with these sockpuppets? They have been harrassing me by undoing my edits for quite a while. Protecting this article alone seems to have few effects. Btw, I will create an account after this. Thanks for your reminder though. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Similar circumstances also occur in editting the "Category:Hong Kong". --223.89.144.195 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like things have stopped on both Macau order of precedence and Category:Hong Kong. Applying temporary semi-protection to these pages would have been the correct solution, however this would also lock you out of being able to edit them, since you don't have an account. I highly recommend that you follow Deb's advice above and create an account for yourself so that you won't be affected by simple measures to stop page disruption (such as this). Shoot, if you create an account now and respond to this ANI with your IP and tell me the username of the ccount you just created, I'll manually set it as 'confirmed' for you right away :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[REDACTED - Oshwah]

The IP address has confirmed an account that (s)he created. So that this new account's IP address is kept private, I've redacted the edits and usernames where this verification was made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:15, 16 February 2018 (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.

Outing at [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]]

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.

---

Prompt removal and oversight of [[REDACTED - Oshwah] ] is needed, presumably along with some additional administrative action. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Blockinated and revdel performed by Oshwah. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dr. Fleischman - I've redacted all traces to the URL from both the page you provided here, as well as this page, and I'll escalate everything from there and get it taken care of for you. Next time, please request suppression by contacting the Oversight team directly (directions are on the top of the Wikipedia page) - not publicly... And definitely don't provide links to pages or diffs that need oversight publicly either! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:39, 16 February 2018 (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:Lavinsky0

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 what appears to be a new pro-Communist POV editor in User:Lavinsky0. Their POV edits have been reverted by several editors (including myself) and ClueBot. A visit from an admin might be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything i edited is fact checked and backed up by direct evidence, including changes on maoism, which is internatinally recognized by the revolutionary parties as the third and superior stage of marxism as marxism-leninism-maoism, it is backed up by evidence not only from the Communist Party of India but also from the Communist Part of Italy and the Communist Part of Peru, it is based on the concrete analysis of the concrete reality therefore it is scientific. I would like it if you stopped undoing my edits because you are a liberal idealist. Thank you very much, have a good night. PS: The only editors who undid my work were you and the automated bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavinsky0 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, the other editor was CFred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice, and your personal attack here just earned you a 36 hour block. I was going to try and talk to you first and offer to help you, but your response here makes it clear that doing so would be to no avail. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Overall i objectively improved on the articles i edited, therefore there are no reasons for undoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavinsky0 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beyond My Ken - I've been keeping an eye on this user's edits as well, and had someone else not beaten me to it (I believe it was ClueBot), I would have also been a user that reverted one of their changes. Their disruptive editing (borderline edit warring), as well as their personal attack here calling you a "liberal idealist", has earned this user a 36 hour block. I'm hoping that they'll be more willing to discuss their changes and let us help them after their block expires. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah with respect, the day "liberal idealist" becomes a personal attack (I mean "bad thing") is the day I quit society. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude - Hey now, I'm just saying... the way that the account used that term in their response above tells me clearly that they meant that to be a personal jab at Beyond My Ken by saying that this is why he reverted his changes, can't be neutral, and what-not. You could replace that with a term that you'd deem a personal attack and it would most likely fit perfectly - that's my point ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude: That's the way I saw it as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I know it was meant to be a personal jab and certainly not intended as a compliment. My point is I'd wear that insult like a badge. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am proud also to be a liberal idealist, even if that makes me a harsh douche canoe.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you honestly think that a Maoist political party is in any way a reliable source for an assertion that Maoism is the highest form of communist thought, then this might not be the project for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC).

Well, after all, this is an editor who thought that

The cult of personality is a reactionary theory based on idealistic conceptions that assumes the masses are dumb and can't think by themselves.

was appropriate encyclopedic writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what they mean about Mao being a superior stage of Communism. Is it because Mao murdered fewer people than Stalin did? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he contributed to the deaths of many millions more than Stalin did. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that's why it's superior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Make sense. The best method of eradication will necessarily be the superior one. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2018 (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.

SeytX

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:SeytX is, well, out of control in terms of the number of AfD's they have started. I came across them when replying to this Afd on Krishna Reddy (artist), who happens to have terrific sources. If an admin could pull the plug on this activity I believe it would be a positive move.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I review his page and found that all of the sources were dead. And that was not notable. so i request fo AFD. SeytX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked all (both) of the references that were in place when you sent it to AFD, and neither of them were dead. Additionally, dead references is not a reason for deletion; there is no requirement that references be online in their original location, when archives are available. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If the ref goes dead you can apply a 'linkrot template I believe. And you need to reread notability. And maybe stop tagging for AfD. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@SeytX: definitely should not start any more AfDs for at least 7 days, to allow people to process the ones he's nominated. I'll do a pass through all of these tomorrow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I placed Keep rationales on 5 of these AfDs yesterday: these had all been initiated (among others) in a 22 minute period - which is far less time than it took me to do the necessary source searches to develop and present my rationale on each. I was examining solely those on elected Nepalese politicians - investigating the others in the spate of quick-fire nominations would take yet more time. This seems disproportionate effort. The duration and quality of the nominator's WP:BEFORE investigations is dubious (some of the subjects gained media coverage as recently as the December 2017 elections): would a procedural close en masse be appropriate? AllyD (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, User:SeytX, I'm also a little concerned with your AFD creation speed here, as well as the very short and (at times) ambiguous rationales that you've been providing in each one. The number of AfD's you've been creating as an account that's only two weeks old is off-the-charts above average, and all but one of the AFD's you created that now have votes are so far set to unanimously close as keep. Obviously, given your high rate of creation and the number of AFD's I see are being voted to be "kept" - you may need to slow down and make sure you've reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines and understand them thoroughly first :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• SeytX, you were asked on your page to withdraw the AdF nominations and replied you would "look after" it,[68] some time ago, and well before you posted here, but you have not done so. How about it?

Another matter: SeytX has also created a large number of non-viable articles that have been speedied; admins can see them here. After I'd myself speedied Rahul Singh ( Entrepreneur), a piece of blatant promotion ("He is a credible, Like Minded, successful PR coach for Businesses and Entrepreneurs across globe", etc) for which there is also an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Singh ( Entrepreneur), I thought it time to ask on SeytX's page if they were being paid for creating these articles. Please respond to me either on your page or here, SeytX. Any paid editing must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC).

• I always find new users immediately hopping onto AfD to be very suspicious, especially at this rate. The two pages created also seemed puffy and promotional. My spidy sense calls for a CU on this user. @Bbb23 and There'sNoTime: !dave 11:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23's findings aside, I would remind the editor that sending bulk articles to AFD that clearly shouldn't be sent, can lead to a topic ban if it continues. It is a type of disruptive editing that the community is quick to act on. You need to use WP:BEFORE, before you nominate. Anyone nominating articles faster than one per 4 or 5 minutes is probably doing so too hastily. It takes that long just to do a minimal good faith search for sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• If this is not a sockpuppet then it's a clueless nationalist. Do we really need to hang around on this? I propose WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I am taking back all the Afds which i have created if its creating problem. Sorry for the disturbance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeytX (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

SeytX - Thank you for listening and taking the feedback provided here with such a positive attitude. Please take my advice and keep yourself off of the "AFD" button for a little while, and take the time to thoroughly review all of the relevant policies and guidelines that involve this process before nominating any more articles for AFD in the future. If you do things right, you'll look back on this a couple of months later and you'll understand how this was problematic. Don't kick yourself over this; we all learn at different paces and we all make mistakes. The best advice I can give you is to go slow when venturing into new or unfamiliar territory like this - you definitely don't want to have performed over 100+ changes in an area that you're new to before you realize that they're not being done correctly or that they're causing major issues :-). Please feed free to message me on my talk page any time if you have any questions or need help with anything. Again, I appreciate your response to this discussion and I'm happy to see that you're working to fix the issues and take our feedback positively so that you can grow and improve as an editor :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even if CU is clear I support a minimum of a TBAN on AfD. My AGF is strained by the feeling the AfD's might be cover for WP:PAID. At two weeks, I did not know what AfD was. A NOTHERE block works as well 'case of the CSD's SHort of that a BAN on new article creation. Many pages need copy editing and sources and other improvements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban. With the mess created by just removing the AfD templates, the user has clearly demonstrated they do not understand the AfD process. Suggest a medium-length (three months?) ban from creating AfD pages or nominating articles for deletion; no objection to user participating in discussion on somebody else's nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, Dlohcierekim Thankyou i'm taking back all the afds you can check now. i'm removing one by one it takes time but all will be removed and thanks for your kind suggestion i'll definitely take a break on AFD and gain some knowledge and will be back . My intention was not to make you all disturbed . SeytX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

SeytX - I understand that it takes some time - no worries. The last thing we want to encourage you to do is rush anything - especially since this is what caused the concerns to begin with :-). Thanks again for doing your best to fix things and improve your contributions upon them - I know that this discussion may appear quite overwhelming given the different responses here, but I want you to know that (even if it isn't said by anyone else) - we really do appreciate what you're trying to do :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Assistance needed to close AfDs. SeytX is removing AfD tags but leaving the AfDs themselves open. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I can help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

C.Fred - Alright, I think I got them all (minus the ones you already got to). Let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• So what should i do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeytX (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

SeytX - If you've removed the AFD notifications from the articles you tagged, C.Fred and I took care of the rest - you should be good to go. Please take this lesson learned to heart and remember that you can ask anyone for help if you're not sure - we'll be more than happy to do so. Be careful and stay out of trouble! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@SeytX: Read the policy guidelines, both generally for editors and particularly on how to nominate articles (and what to do before nominating). Contribute to other articles. Watch the discussions that go on about articles. But whatever you do, please do not nominate any more pages for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Should i remove afd notice from pages or not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeytX (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed all the Afds please take a look after that. Is this ok or not ? please let me know and again i'm sorry for the inconvenience. SeytX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delsorter comment The AfDs have all been closed, Seytx. I must apologise msyelf for not doing anything when I noticed that a lot of nominatiosn were happening close together, I considered leaving a message such as I did with Greenborg and Marquardtika, but didn't out of laziness. I am remorse that my lack of action prevented the helping of a new user. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'll just leave this here. Probably can close this now. ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Not all of them were closed. I've closed the remaining ones that don't have at least one delete vote (per WP:SKCRIT#2). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I thought something was fishy. Thanks for taking care of this.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2018 (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.

Sad editor comparing WP:MED to ISIS

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:Davieinspain added a bunch of links to a bunch of links to a website as an IP, then when they were removed, came back as a registered editor to add some more. When people removed them and explained that they're inappropriate, he is leaving messages on their talk pages like:

• "Velella--you're lame and you know it."
• "Sigh. Another Wikipedia "editor" who doesn't see the forest for the trees. [...] Repeat: you're lame."
• "Well, "thanks" for the kind message. I see you've been here 10 years, and you love that you're an OG, and all. But to say my external links are advertising shows you've lost your way. Look, it's clear you love being a "patroller". What a title! Ah, the power. Very KGB. Very Gestapo. Very thought police. Yet I checked the guidelines for links and putting up an external link to a Stanford University site on research is hardly advertising or promotion. It's funny to me though...statistically, someday you or someone close to you will get HIV, cancer or Alzheimers. Then you'll ask yourself, should I rather have been such a fanatical "patroller," or actually helped the world of disease research through a single link on Wikipedia? Your sick friend will answer that for you..."
• "HA! I expected this from you Natureium; I saw your large list of edits--often contested, btw--and foresaw you would intrude sooner than later. I was correct. Look, I get it. You in fact proved my KGB/Gestapo analogy: You are a closely knit group of hyper-sensitive "patrollers." You tolerate no dissension nor can see outside the box. Deleting anything remotely considered un-fawning makes it easier to avoid the larger issue and shields you from any kind of dialogue. What's amusing to me is that I really have no dog in the fight. I live in Spain. I am not part of the Stanford project whose links I posted. Just trying to add to the world of information out there, and disease research. So your deletion of a comments means nothing to me--except to confirm my stated observation that indeed, you are like members of ISIS: constituents of a small, fanatical group who demand utter obedience to the organization that they serve, and destroy all references to that which they disagree. ISIS uses explosives; you use the delete key. Power, even in the most banal form such as a Wikipedia patroller, is so intoxicating. Now run along, there are more heretics and infidels to slay!"

As far as I can tell, there are no members of the KBG or ISIS in WP:MED, so could someone do something about this? Natureium (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for WP:NOTHERE, as this is what the user's contributions clearly show. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 16 February 2018 (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.

Copyright violations, promotional intent by a COI 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.

---

Americanfootballupdater (talk · contribs) has admitted that he or she works for Texas State [69], and has re-created articles about the football team's assistant coaches multiple times today. Each was deleted at least once for copyright violations, and I've nominated each again for notability. Multiple warnings have been for naught. Some support will be appreciated, and if I'm wrong about the coaches' notability, well, that would be fine, too. But this account bears some attention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 17 February 2018 (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.

Falsification of Data by SamGarciah

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.

---

• SamGarciah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mexicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has repeatedly falsified race/ethnicity data related to Mexico. It's unclear why, but they repeatedly attempted to inflate the number of white people in Mexico. I checked the sources before reverting to make sure they were indeed incorrect.

Examples of this are:

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]

They were given a final warning on February 3, 2018, but continued the behavior on February 12, 2018. In this edit, they changed the number of Indigenous Mexicans from 25.7 million to 6.4 million. However, the source they give says that 21.5% of the population of 119,530,753 consider themselves Indigenous (see p. 8 where it says "Poblacion que se considera Indigena").

Frankly I'd ask for NOTHERE block as they appear to be edit warring on Western world too, but will leave that to admin discretion. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user for persistently adding unreferenced content, as well as for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2018 (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.

Yelysavet vs. Interwikilinks II

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 still like an opinion on whether the interwikilinks removed by user:Yelysavet should be restored.

And if so, how could this be done efficiently?

Please see my request from December.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Admins don't decide on stuff like this. You should ask at the village pump. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (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.

harsh douche-canoe?

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.

---

Never encountered User:Jack Sebastian before so was very surprised to be called a "harsh douche-canoe" (whatever that is, it sounds awful) and to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen mocked with vulgarity. Attempts to deal with the user failed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherise_Haugen and [79] He brought it to my talkpage User_talk:Legacypac#Yeah,_about_that... saying he could take me to ANi. Is this kind of attack against a good faith editor acceptable or is a block warranted? Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No and no. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Harsh douche-canoe is pretty good -- either Twainesque or Hammett-esque, not sure which -- but it should really be reserved for a situation with more at stake. Wasted here. EEng 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you take douche as a shower (French) this would just be spraying down your canoe with a 10% vinegar solution. Not a very powerful insult.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going for a Hunter S. Thompson vibe. I'm an asshole sometimes; I'm working on it. I kinda hate it when someone comes to a deletion discussion and gets treated as poorly as Legacypac did for PageantUpdater. Verbally tapping such a user on the shoulder often has no effect; they shrug it off. Give them a figurative shove and call them on their bad behavior often does the trick. Unfortunately, Legacypac only saw how someone being harsh to him affected them. Had they been nicer, the discussion would have simply continued. Maybe the user thinks they're being "edgy" and "kewl" instead of insensitive and rude. Politeness goes a long way to maintaining civil conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Justice League, maybe you should have picked the correct side in your fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, since it's PageantUpdater with the long record of pitching fits when challenged. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

{"Mr. Justice League" - that's pretty good!) I wasn't responding to PageantUpdater's behavior, which seemed fine in this instance. He was reasonable; Legacypac's approach was trout-worthy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care that much about users here calling each other this and that, but don't talk about article subjects like you do in that AfD, Legacypac. "It is laughable to call this person an 'actress'" — really? That wasn't even in response to something, it was what you opened with. Consider that the person may well be watching their bio page, and therefore may see what you say about them in the AfD. Please think twice before you laugh at them. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

I did NOT laugh at the subject rather I rejected the claim, in Wikipedia voice, that the subject is an "actress" for what the source calls "one small acting role in the Michael J. Fox and Joan Jett movie "Light of Day.""¹ There is a difference between doing something little bit once and being labeled a professional by Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about, Legacypac. Not even slightly. It's the way you put it. You said it's laughable to call her an actress. Is my point clearer if I say "Please think twice before you sneer at living people"? Just stop digging and try to "reject claims" a little more sensitively. The "subject" is an actual woman. What if she was your sister? Bishonen | talk 12:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

My female reletives are not actresses or models either and if wikipedia claimed they were it would be laughable too. Nice you "don't care" about direct attacks on living people who edit, only imagined slights against subjects who may or may not be watching. How would you feel if random editors started insulting you? Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of the point, Legacypac: how do you think the subject of the article feels about you insulting her? How would her daughters feel, reading that? How should PageantUpdater feel about you snidely dismissing his polite remarks? Dude, please begin to get the point. You have to think about shit that affects others, not just yourself. Think before you edit, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside: I find it bloody irritating that putting out one ghostwritten memoir immediately leads to "author" being added to every "celebrity"'s Wikipedia biography, and putting ten bucks in a charity pot adds "philanthropist", and so on. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Part of the New Normal in the Realm of False Equivalence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:PageantUpdater has not been treated rudely, but is making comments on AfDs that are building toward a topic ban. The real tragedy is the fancruft fans that insist on making pages for private low profile individuals that include guesswork and unsourced nonsense. The ghits for one of the ones I researched yesterday did not even cover a page of results, with the top one being her facebook profile with 88 followers and the second one her twitter handle. The rest were the Wikipedia page, related list pages and Wiki mirrors. Low Profile in every way. We are invading her privacy by working on the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, that is the first time I have ever heard - as a reason to delete an article - that we were invading someone's privacy by keeping it. Inventive.

However, it isn't the first time I have heard someone throw shade at an article because they they just didn't think it was worth their time. Brother (or sister- I am not sure how you gender-equate), I have seen fancruft before, and the article isn't it. You earn yourself no points by continuing to throw shit at the article, like some ill-tempered chimp. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• • • WP:BLP1E, WP:DOB, WP:NPF and WP:BIO1E all apply to someone that won a contest as a child and went on to live a low profile life. Throwing in parent and sibling names runs against WP:BLPNAME privacy conserns. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Man, I want you on my team for dodgeball. It seems no one can connect you with The Point. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol a topic ban? Really? For one of the only editors interested in the topic who has spent hours improving and referencing articles? I even applied for a Newspapers.com account purely for the ability to be able to reference these articles properly. Well I guess that's one way for you and others like you to fulfil your aim of purging Wikipedia from pageant-related articles forever. Dude, I'm not the problem. The hundreds of throwaway accounts vandalising these articles, adding fancruft and totally disregarding policies, guidelines and the MOS that I and a few others fight on a daily basis are your problem. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the way you regularly dismiss everyone else who cites BLP and other policy as practicing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen and other pages. Read the comments I found on your talk User_talk:PageantUpdater#February_2018_2 about this behavior. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you and I have differing views about how to interpret WP:BIO which is fine. What I take issue with is excessively sarcastic, indeed disrespectful nominations [80] and (what comes across to me as) aggressively targeting a topic space with similarly framed AFDs without letting a couple of these run their course, redirecting articles unilaterally, not paying attention to previous AFD decisions in doing this etc. If you think she doesn't pass WP:BIO then you could have just said that. No need for all the overkill. I understand that I'm heavily invested in this topic space which you don't like, perhaps I do react too strongly. But I've spent over a decade trying to improve these articles in line with policies, guidelines & the MOS, and I don't appreciate the attitude you've unnecessarily brought to the AFDs. Just run a straight nom, let it come to a decision, and go from there. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I'm with Bishonen here. Before this thread gets archived I want you to know that talking about BLP subjects in the way you did is a BLP violation, at least in my book. As for the other issue, Jack Sebastian, kindly refrain from using such terms, OK? Drmies (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. He pushed my buttons, and I am admittedly a jerk sometimes. Jesus isn't done with me just yet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think that Legacypac's comment is such a violation of BLP that it should be removed. This sort of thing doesn't improve Wikipedia's reputation much, does it. . . First Light (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

GAD I have boldly removed and revdel'd that sentence. It is clearly not something I'd want the subject to see. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Subjects of articles can get very upset just by being called non notable. Please don't refer to them in so hurtful a manner. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Thinking of changing my user name to Harsh Douche Canoe. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm here all year, folks. Be sure to tip your servers and hosts. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And @Dlohcierekim:, I just grabbed up the username. I'll set it up as a humor/doppleganger. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think it should be pointed out that after this was closed as no consensus User:Legacypac appears to have disagreed with the decision. Adding a ton of OR/notability/unsourced tags [81] [82] is one thing but unlaterally redirecting an article without seeking consensus (or considering the previous AFD) is quite another. There is no reason the article could not also have been tagged or ideally the editor could have improved the article himself. Sources were there for the grabbing.[83] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with redirecting a page that fails WP:BRANCH and has ZERO references. In one breath the tagging is criticised and the next you want the same topics tagged? These topics are filled with WP:OR and fancruft and errors (based on how often I see facts changed without any refs). The fact the mass AfD went no consensus says that my views are widely shared among editors that believe in WP:V and WP:N and are not narrowly focussed on the hobby of tracking pageant results. Anyway, ANi is not for content disputes, please use the article talkpages to justify unreferenced material. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not focus your efforts on article improvement rather than tagging? Aren't we all here to build an encyclopaedia? I understand we clearly have different interpretations of that, I just feel working to fix the errors is a better use of time than tagging that can easily be removed with a bit of effort to improve each article - or creating ANI discussions for frivolous complaints? I think Jack Sebastian got it 100% correct. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And you uncivilly insulted me on my talk page with the same insult as Jack.

Why would I spend my efforts trying to source fancruft on non-notable pages? If you or other editors want these pages, bring them up to standard and prove the unquestionable notability you claim exists. I found one with 33 years of data lacking any source or verification and I was not even looking very hard.

The reason these preliminary round pages often lack sources is that generally no reliable sources discuss the topic as a topic. When challanged for sources, frustated users must resort to dig hard for WP:ROUTINE newspaper "local girl wins award" coverage or reprinted press releases and archived pageant business pages to support the annual data, and WP:SYNTH off the Wikipedia tables to come up with the trivia. It must be frustating to have to work so hard to overcome N and V issues all the time. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, Physician, heal thyself. You really, really need to work on that empathy thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2018 (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.

Unsourced infomation from one user

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

LegerPrime is adding lot of unsourced infomation and/or vandalism into lot of articles.

Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IQiyi&type=revision&diff=818557618&oldid=814583917

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comcast&type=revision&diff=825336371&oldid=825132473

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=825498242&oldid=825497684&title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&type=revision

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entertainment_One&diff=prev&oldid=823635444

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movies_Anywhere&diff=prev&oldid=825212747

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Walt_Disney_Company&diff=next&oldid=824705347

They is adding so many infomation without sources. Some Wikipedia users has found that this user also do vandalism.

Can anyone revoke extended confirmed access and extend block for this user to a years or indef? Unsourced infomation and vandalism is bad for Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - LegerPrime was blocked by me yesterday, and is currently appealing the block. The reason for the block was AIV request. The user has a right to appeal their block. I'm neutral on the issue, and am wondering why the above post when a block has already been in place. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The OP is asking for the block to be extended. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

LegerPrime block may be extended to year or indef anytime once the block appeal is denied or talk page abused. This user must use sources very well and don't do vandalism, but... 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This user did add false claims on user talk page. This user current block need to be extended to years or indef. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've interacted with LegerPrime in several articles and had an extended interaction with him on his talk page after warning him for putting wrongly sourced material in articles. In my view, the user has been trying to use sources when editing since his previous block for adding unsourced material. However, the user has not been very careful when doing so...leading to times when the user does use a source, but the source either does not back up the text being added or does so in a very convoluted manner. The user can be both a bit snippy and sloppy sometimes, but they seem to be acting in good faith.

That said, I don't think this user did anything to deserve a year-long or indef block (though I have no issue with the 3-month block Maile gave out earlier).

Moreover, I note that one of the diffs the IP cited was the diff that led to his current block. All other diffs given by the IP user, except one, are older than the diff that resulted in a 3-month block, (the exception is this one, which I reverted a couple of days ago not because it was unsourced, disruptive, or vandalism, but rather because I didn't think it was notable enough for inclusion in the article). Given that, I don't think any additional action against the editor is warranted. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Not sure why we are here, as these issues have been addressed already. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: @Dlohcierekim: Talking about extending the block for this user and what this user did done. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LegerPrime, they did claim that "In fairness, my recent edits since my last block were sourced when required.", "One of them were from before my last block. The rest are sourced." and "All of the unsourced edits I did on those were from before my last block.". This user use false sources that have no value to the article. One Wikipedia user did claim that this user also vandalized some Wikipedia articles. Some the claims in this user talk is false. This user did sent a unblock appeal, but it going to be rejected. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone close it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:781E:3420:E9BF:22AD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive proxy user

Maybe this issue has been previously discussed. There is an Iranian proxy hopper, that has been disrupting Wikipedia for a very long time. The user incorrectly inserts DOB in the infobox, e.g. [84], [85], [86]. There are tons of other examples, cross-wiki as well. Could anything be done about this recurring vandalism/trolling? A range block? Disembodied Soul (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Smells like the Cause of death vandal to me - blocked. Berean Hunter has slapped a range block on one of those IPs already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really the MO of our long-term vandal, to be honest - this just looks like common vandalism that happens to be centred around infoboxes. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Noodlefish96

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 kept reverting properly sourced information, adding unsourced statements, and justified their own edits as "improvements." We were both blocked for edit warring on an article (my block lasting 24 hours and theirs lasting 60), but I failed to mention that part of my doing was removing unsourced information and adding citations. When repeatedly asked to provide citations, the user has not done so, and instead responded with: "I'm not considered to be edit warring and I have consensus for my edits," when per the article's talk page, no such thing has been reached. Examples of their reverts are below:

·This edit was described one way, but ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, but Variety say otherwise.

·This diff's description says the user removed information because it needed a citation when said user removed the information as well as its source.

·This revert's description reads, "section was improved," except that one of the suggestions made by the GA reviewer of the article was not to overlink article titles, which this revert did.

Please assist me on how to proceed. Thank you in advance! DantODB (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• @DantODB: Very sorry to hear about your recent troubles. But this is not the place, I'm afraid, for resolving such content-orientated disputes as you present here. Obviously it can't be a behavioural matter as the other party is still blocked. Wait another ~48 hours, and then the both of you put your heads together around table, chew it over, and compromise item by item, on the talk page. Feel free, of course, to start the discussion first, so it's ready and waiting! If you are suggesting that actually (part?) of your block was exempt from edit-warring sanctions, then I'm afraid I have to inform you otherwise. The only thing that would have applied in your case was blatant vandalism—none of which is exemplified in your diffs. (Although I'm in no way condoning their behaviour or suggesting those edits or their remarks should not have been challenged—just that they should have been done so in a different way.) Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Noodlefish for a variety of reasons, including edit-warring and gaming my request for self-reversion, and they're still blocked. I also blocked DantOBD for four reverts on the material that Noodlefish was disrupting, but for a shorter term, and counseled him on reversion/edit-warring policy. @DantOBD, please follow my advice previously given: I suggest that you concisely address Noodlefish's edits on the talkpage, good, bad or indifferent. That way you'll have a basis for reviewers and uninvolved editors to see what you're doing and why, rather than having to parse a wall of edit history without edit summaries, as has previously been the case. Once you've done that you can start to work on the article again, being careful not to be drawn into an edit-war - if disruption resumes, you'll need to use AN3 or contact an administrator. I am not optimistic about Noodlefish, they have had a bit of trouble with listening to advice and sticking to commitments. We will see what they do when their block expires. In the meantime, please lay out your proposed edits on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@DantODB: Noodlefish has been blocked indefinitely as a sock so hopefully that makes things a bit easier for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Acroterion NeilN: Thank you all! DantODB (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2018 (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.

Requesting removal of Pending Changes permissions

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've spoken to WikiPedant (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)} a number of times about the recent change to the Days-of-year pages, which now requires sourcing. Most of these pages have pending changes settings configured such that non auto-confirmed users require acceptance. Unfortunately, when I discussed this change with the editor, s/he rejected the change to the project and told me to get off his/her talk page.

Since this editor is deliberately accepting un-sourced additions, rejecting project standards, and WP:ADMINACCT applies to some level, I am requesting that Pending changes reviewer ‎permissions be revoked from this user's account. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. Please remember to notify any involved parties to a discussion at ANI that you are opening. I have taken care of the necessary notification of WikiPedant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Since no red links are allowed and every entry is a blue link to an article, why is a source required? Ideally, yes, but WP:V has never said you must verify everything, only that it is possible to verify. Wikipedia is full of missing citations, after all. I see the Project and Essay, and I'm sure that is all good advice, but I'm not sure I want to bit strip someone for not following an essay. Have you had to revert anything they have accepted because it wasn't true? Is there an ongoing problem with him accepting edits that are clearly false? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, there are a couple of points here:

1. This isn't the place to rehash this discussion. An RFC was opened and closed on the subject. I know a lot of folks who have been around a while have differing views, but this is what was decided - and it makes sense. The project had exempted themselves from a policy and we have a bunch of garbage in these articles as a result - and we're used to it. See #2 & #3.
2. Yes, there is a not-insignificant problem where events on the DOY pages are incorrect. There are a few WP:WikiGnomes that are spending a tremendous amount of time going through these problems. Dldnh (talk · contribs) is a great example of someone cleaning this mess up.
3. There is a broader problem where unsourced WP:DOB info appears on both the DOY page and the article page. That is why a blue link alone is not good enough. This problem is rampant. When it comes to living people, that is a serious problem. I've been spending a fair amount of time cleaning this up myself. This is why I proposed the wording on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style be changed.
4. The bigger problem IMHO is WP:ADMINACCT. When someone is given advanced privileges, they are held to standards accordingly. When someone with advanced privileges is asked in good faith to use them more in line with agreed-upon standards and to enforce a policy, the answer shouldn't be along the lines of "You're harassing me. You're disruptive. Get off my talk page and stay off" which is what we have here. I know this one better than most, and one of the reasons I am a former admin.

Toddst1 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• You haven't really addressed my concerns. You are using the basis for action an RFC at a WikiProject, about the wording of an essay. While that may accurately summarize "best practices", there is no policy that I am aware of to bolster your claim. In fact, our policy on verification and our WP:Editing policy seem to contradict that essay. I'm not going to bit strip someone based on that essay, regardless of how many RFCs were had to formulate it, as I don't see a pattern of abuse or policy/guideline violation. Of course, you are free to challenge any entry by removing it (although I wouldn't just go after a single person's edits, for obvious reason), or go find a source yourself (which is probably the most productive option), but I simply don't see a clear POLICY violation that justifies the drastic action of removing someone's advanced bit. Quite literally, it would be an abuse for me to remove his bit without being able to show a policy violation, and my action would be subject to the same WP:adminacct you quote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis Brown, sorry. I don't see a persistent pattern of misuse here ([87]), rather than following the (previous) longstanding practice (in Years/Days of the year and other similar projects). Looking back at the RfC, the consensus of that discussion isn't really clear IMO despite of the closing statement, but I agree it's not appropriate to discuss them here. If we were to enforce that particular result of the RfC moving forward, I am thinking along the lines of "encouraging best practice" (WP:DOYSTYLE) would probably be better in the long term, instead of imposing them as required mandatory practice (which is what's happening here, I think). Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'm also with Dennis Brown here. The RFC established a proper style for a finished list; that we are aiming for having every entry with proper citations. That's fine, but to refuse to accept needed work because it isn't perfect seems unreasonable, Wikipedia articles are built in collaboration, and built over time, and we accept good-faith additions by people which are on the path towards our end goals. If something is verifiable but simply lacks a source, it's quite allowed to add the source yourself or to leave it for such a time that someone else can add a source later. Demanding that the article must be in its finished state from EVERY edit is beyond unreasonable, and I don't believe that is what the RFC authorized. --Jayron32 13:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with Dennis Brown, Jayron32 and Alex Shih above. Seems too drastic a step based on an essay that does not carry the weight of a policy or guideline. Net positive to not remove WikiPedant's bit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (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.

Mass creation of pages 'Be Bold' in userspace

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 noticed that a lot of non-autoconfirmed are creating pages 'User:Example/Be Bold', with the only content on the being, "Being bold is very important on Wikipedia", or some other rendition of it. I don't what, if anything, can be done about this, maybe an edit filter?

Examples — [(1)], [(2)], [(3)], [(4)], [(5)], [(6)], [(7)], [(8)], [(9)], [(10)], [(11)] and [(12)].

Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)(Edited 22:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC))

Notes

I found a bunch too. I wondered if it was a school classroom exercise. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I also found 'Example/Citing sources'. See: [(13)], [(14)], [(15)], and [(16)]. Should the be salted?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• See, e.g., User:MParacha. Any complaints should go to the instructor or Wiki Ed coordinator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a bunch of people doing a WikiEd course at the University of Michigan. They're practicing wiki syntax in their user spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2018 (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.

Persistent 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.

---

There seems to be quite a bit of trouble caused by an anonymous IP going by User talk:62.255.130.170. This user has a history of "blanking pages" all over wikipedia. He has been blocked in March 2017 for 3 months, then blocked again in July 2017 for 6 months, and now this user is back to doing the very things he was blocked for in the first place. He has already blanked the pages for the Godzilla (franchise) article twice, shown here and here and the article for Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters, shown here. It's pretty clear that this user has not learned his lesson with temporary blocks. Perhaps a permanent block should suffice. Armegon (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

IP is blocked for one year due to repeated vandalism. This IP's edits would typically be ruled as "stale" since it hasn't edited in about two days now, but given the number of edits in proportion to the number of blocks in the IP's log, I think it's okay to apply a block in this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "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.

---

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

After he made this disruptive edit[88] where he called edit a "vandalism", by using a self-reverted edit[89] as justification, I warned him that constructive edits are not vandalism.[90] Indeed, that's something he already knows, but he is still frequently calling such edits a "vandalism".[91][92] He has been calling constructive edits a "vandalism" for a long time.[93][94][95][96][97][98]

WP:COMPETENCE issues are not limited to this. In his edit,[99] he used this source[100] for replacing "India" with "Indus River", but source says "India", not "Indus River". Lorstaking (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Administrator,
  I have explained my accusation on the talk page: Talk:Cradle_of_civilization#Intentionally_rewriting_sections_to_be_more_vague_is_Vandalism._(Indus_Valley_changed_to_Indo-Gangetic_Plain)
  NINE Sources have been provided where the majority refer to the Indus River/Indus Valley. These 2 users have repeatedly changed the Indus valley/Indus river references to several other references that are NOT listed in the sources. They are engaging in Original Research and edit warning, ignoring talk page discussions and dragging other users to Administrator notice boards without engaging in any discussions.
  Please note that neither Lorstaking nor user User:EdwardElric2016 have contributed to the talk page. These two users have simply engaged in undoing constructive edits and plastering my talk page with warnings.
  The entire premise of the article is based on the following section: Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles
  The 9 sources list/discuss the Indus River or Indus Valley.
  Lorstaking removed this reference in favour of "Indo-Gangetic plan" back in October: [101] He also removed the Indus Valley reference in favour of the general term "India".
  I stand by my comment that this is vandalism as he is removing references to sourced information and adding his personal POV to articles while ignoring any talk page discussions. This user has not engaged with me in any constructive manner about the topic. He posted a warning and then created an admin incident. This is against everything wikipedia stands for. --Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also, [102] was not my edit. This would be another example of Lorstaking edit warring with others. Refer to [103] Xinjao (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• As a final point to address the actual dispute, which User:Lorstaking still refuses to address, as he seems more interested in combing my contributions from 2015. Please refer to the a simple Google search [104] The common name which scholarly articles and the vast majoity of searches utilise is "Indus Valley". The sources in the article use this name unless referring to the entire subcontinent. Lorstaking is engaging in POV by removing the Indus Valley references in favour of "Indo-Gangetic Plain" and the more non-specific and broad "India" references. Xinjao (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sources call "India", not "Indus Valley" or "Indus River". Do you really believe that because you don't like the term "India", you are allowed to misrepresent sources? Makes no sense. This is a single edit, not edit warring and it remained there to this day until you started edit warring and misrepresenting sources today. There is clear WP:IDHT from you.

"I stand by my comment that this is vandalism", I expect there will be a speedy block for this continued incompetence, because now there should be no doubt regarding your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take 2 mins to actually read the sources. They talk about the Indus Valley or the Indus River. This has nothing to do with what "I like". You are misrepresenting the sources. Not a single source refers to "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is what you submitted in October. Furthermore, you have refused to engage with me on the Talk page and all you seem capable of is threatening users with warnings and bans. Xinjao (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You are now trolling me, but don't worry no one will find any sense in your comments. Already mentioned you that in your edit you used this source[105] which says "India" not "Indus". Another source of yours[106] makes no mention of "Cradle of civilization". [107] redirects to college admissions, while [108] redirects to scam websites. Using such references won't impress me at all but only prove how deceptive you are. I expect not only a block but also a topic ban on your account for your continued failure to WP:HEAR that how badly you are misrepresenting sources, since this all comes after you had been already warned of WP:AC/DS about WP:ARBPAK.[109] Lorstaking (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that your only intention is to ban people who disagree with you. Admin, please note that he repeatedly talk about warnings, bans, blocks, topic bans rather than engaging with people on the talk pages. These are NOT my sources. These sources are already in use in the article so please don't accuse me of this nonsense. The source [110] refers to INDUS VALLEY and has been used on the page for years. Here is another source already in use which refers to Indus Valley [111]. The fact of the matter is that you favoring "Indo-Gangetic Plain" reference which is not listed in any of the existing sources.
This entire discussion should take place in the talk page of the article, but since your primary focus is to get people banned, we find ourselves doing it here. Incompetence. Xinjao (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems are with your excessive lack of competence. The source that I had added supports the information by saying "major river valleys of the Indo-Gangetic Plain of South Asia were among the great cradles of civilization,"[112] unlike your misrepresentation of sources. According to your POV, we should be adding sources[113][114] that mention "Indus Valley" but not "Cradle of civilization"(name of the article) in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and you also want us to remove what is not liked by you even if it is accurately supported by the source. This is just another incident of your small and recent editing history that you are always editing with an agenda,[115][116][117] you can't edit neutrally. ~~

Stick to the topic if you can. This has nothing to do with my contributions in other topics. For a person who refused to engage on the article talk page and where your first course of action is to get people banned, I question your competence too. What you have described above is Original Research, which you started working on in October of last year. "Indus Valley" returns nearly 4 million results whereas "Indo-Gangetic Plain" returns 200 000 off topic results that have nothing to do with the Civilization topic. You are engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH by adding these references to the article. Thanks for admitting this openly Xinjao (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is meant for commenting on editor, not for gaining support for your problematic article version. Is it really possible to find someone "engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH" even after adding "references to the article"? Thanks for the laughs but that is not what I had asked for. Lorstaking (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

#1. If you had taken time to contribute to the talkpage of the article, we wouldn't be discussing the article here. You did not show any intent to discuss the subject. Your first move was to post a warning and your second move was to raise a case with an Admin. Your partner User:EdwardElric2016 also refused to discuss in the talk page. He repeatedly reverted my edits while asking me to use the talk page.
2. You clearly don't understand the concept of Original Research. You are expanding a definition to fit your POV, against the norm and against popular interpretation. A simple Google search reveals this. The phrase "Indo-Gangetic plain" is almost never used in this context. Indus Valley is the widely used common phrase when discussing the emergence of civilisation in the Indian subcontinent. So yes, your edits from October are examples of Original Research Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having visited the article recently and seeing the revert warring there, there does some to be an issue with the new user:EdwardElric2016 who does not seem to be familiar with policy, including reliable sources as even stated on his talk page. I would suggest this ANI is a bit premature and that the content of this ANI be posted on the article talk page. If the majority sources refer to it as Indus Valley (as seems to be the case), we could have a case of WP:UNDUE. Otherwise I can propose an alternative to put in the article. But one thing I should point to is the Indus Valley and Indo-Gangetic plain are two different things. Indo-Gangatic plain refers to the Indus and the Ganges; whereas the sources seems to be talking about just one of them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree here. There is no issue with EdwardElric2016, he is a competent editor who is editing for a couple of years. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00, He has so far refused to engage on the talk page but he continues to revert edits. On a different note, I also disagree with you deleting my talk page entry. I was discussing the content and the sources, but I have rewritten the entry with a different tone if that helps. I expect EdwardElric to engage this time. --Xinjao (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Xinjao, the report concerns your toxic conversations, misrepresentation of sources and false accusation of vandalism that you have made above as well, this has nothing to do with your petty content dispute. Evidence shows that you have been carrying this disruptive editing for years and here you have shown zero remorse for your actions because you believe them to be right. For such reasons, a block is really warranted, or a final warning that any similar misconduct will lead to a topic ban or long block. I am fine with either or both, but before this thread is willfully derailed anymore by you regarding the actual issues with your conduct, I would ping NeilN to have a look. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 I find your comments really unfair as you have decided to focus on that one word that might have been misapplied. I went by the book and initiated a discussion on the talk page which went completely unanswered. This users first action was to post a warning and second action was to start this admin case where he falsely accusses me of socking. I have a total of TWO edits on that article. They simply do not care for the talk page or discussing the content. I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in Original research and ignoring talk page discussions. What is your suggestion that I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xinjao: As you probably know, reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. If you really think the edits are vandalism, then you believe that you are free to revert them without consequence or having to give a reason. If "vandalism" is your way of describing content that you don't like, then you are are attacking other editors, calling them vandals. The first option shows you don't know what vandalism is, which means your judgment regarding content matters can't be trusted in this area. The second option means you are simply attacking other editors, always unacceptable, but more so in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. I strongly suggest you carefully read our vandalism policy, especially WP:NOTVAND, as more incorrect accusations will result in a topic ban or block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise for the confusion NeilN. Vandalism might not have been the best word, but how do I address this users practices? They are not responding to talk page discussions, while mockingly reverting edits and referring to talk pages. Upon further reading, I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in original research, while changing sourced content. What would you suggest I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xinjao: If you have clear-cut evidence the editor habitually adds original research in the India/Pakistan area despite being warned, then look into filing an WP:AE request. The cases presented need to obvious, however - not a matter of interpretation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Xinjao believes there is original research because his opinion is more prevailing than the one added by Lorstaking, though Xinjao has so far failed to provide single source that would support his opinion. There is no original research if reliable source has been provided to support the information, this has been already said by Lorstaking above still Xinjao is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Falsely accusing others of "mockingly reverting" him shows battleground mentality. Recent problems are not limited to this single article either[118], there seems to be a long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing from Xinjao. Misrepresentation of sources has been explained above, however it seems that are worse issues with using sources. On talk page, Xinjao admits that two of his sources "no longer exists", or he "do not have access", still he edit warred to add these sources. That is a blatant falsification of sources. Xinjao at least deserves a final warning logged to WP:DSLOG regarding these serious concerns, that any more of this will lead to blocks or topic bans. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats a lot of baseless accusations coming from you Capitals. You have called me petty earlier too. I dont understand your hostility. I repeat once again for your benefit. Those were not my sources. Those sources were already being used in the article for years and I referred back to them. Please don't accuse me of edit warring. I have a total of 2 edits on that page and I actually engaged in the talk page unlike the person you are strongly defending. Out of 9 sources, 6 check out. 2 are inaccessible. But none of those 9 sources correlate with Lorstakings edits. You also misquoted me on the "mockingly reverted" comment. Edward reverted my edit whilst telling me to use the Talk page. I consider this "mocking" because he is clearly refusing to respond in the talk page himself.Xinjao (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is well evidenced already. Though your inability to understand simple English language is clear. He called your content dispute "petty", not to you. You have frequently claimed that "9 sources"[119] [120] [121] supported your content and now you claim "6". None of your source support your sentence. If you are still not hearing then I would better expect you to be topic banned as result of this thread. There is no denial that you edit with an ethnic agenda and you don't care about editing with care. That's why you added the sources you didn't even read per your own admission. It is also irrelevant that what you "consider", as such statement only shows your inability to consider your mistakes. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Admins. Please note the personal attacks and please note that I have made a total of 2 edits on that page but I have lost count of the number of baseless accusations from these two. Lorstaking has spent more time trying to get me banned than he has engaged on the talk page. His dismissal of 6 valid sources (that are not even mine) in order to engage in his own original research supported by a single source is beyond astonishing. I will raise this separately. Xinjao (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single personal attack. These false accusations of misconduct will get you blocked. You don't even know what is an "original research" despite having told 100s of time that if statement has been supported by reliable source then there is no original research. This is not only a case of WP:CIR but also WP:IDHT, you are deliberately attempting to mislead. "that are not even mine"? That means you hate to take responsibility for your edits now, yet you are tirelessly professing them. With this continued presentation of your incompetence, you are typically asking for an indef block until you grasp the policies correctly. Lorstaking (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's more than enough with your misguided hostility, insults and off topic posts. You raised this admin incident because you believe I am being disruptive with my 2 Edits and a talk page post, which you initially refused to engage. I will let the admins decide on the next course of action. Please keep the content discussion to the talk page. I see more people have countered your views. Address them please. Xinjao (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no hostility but concerns about you, if you can really contribute in a collaborative environment because to this day you have used Wikipedia for your WP:BATTLEs often.[122][123][124] Who would want to engage in a "talk page post", where you are misrepresenting sources, posting rants and calling every edit a vandalism with which you disagree? That's why bringing you to ANI was a better solution. Even after this all, nothing has been changed. You could've done yourself a favor if you could avoid the article but you are only making it worse for yourself by continuing your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am collaborating. I raised the talk page discussion, but thank you for explicitly admitting that you did not want to engage in those. According to you, the article was misrepresenting sources long before I entered, which is clear when you dismissed these sources back in October and added Uncommon Names instead. I had no involvement in the article when you started this process. Others are disagreeing with your edits and providing new sources, so perhaps take a look at your own conduct. --Xinjao (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no one will engage in talk page that is toxic instead raise issues with the conduct of the user. You are using it as scapegoat, but if you were really so fond of talk page discussion you would've opened a talk page section first before making your disruptive edits on main article or after getting reverted per WP:BRD. I am yet to see anyone "disagreeing". 3 users are in agreement so far, there is nothing wrong with his conduct, though there are too many problems with your conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having taken onboard Neil and Capitals feedback, I have created a new entry on the Talk page of the article, detailing the mismatch in the sources and the text being used in the article: Indo-Gangetic_Plain_vs_Indus_River_Valley Hope this helps. Xinjao (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the above claim that EdwardElric2016 is necessarily a competent user. He's added original research on various articles and received numerous warnings on his talk page. So I'd disagree that it's necessarily user:Xinjao that's the problem. Despite being reverted, he has carefully explained his edits and is correct to state that the majority of sources agree on calling it Indus Valley; wheras User:EdwardElric2016 ignores this. There's more but I'll add it to the article talk page when I have time.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about "his talk page" or "various articles" or this incident? You need to provide diffs for your claims, because they seem baseless. I am yet to see any misrepresentation of sources and mislabeling of constructive edits as vandalism or any other problems from EdwardElric2016 that are found in Xinjao, and now we have you to lend blind support to apparent disruption. You are under a final warning[125] and you should not take risks that will lead to reinstatement of topic ban on your account. I would remind here that you have already tested boundaries when you and Xinjao were trying to WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS on Hindustan,[126] about 3 months ago. Let us hope that you won't repeat mistake in the future. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I clearly provided a link to his talk page. Likewise, Xinjaoe has clearly made his case regarding the sources, but again you not listening, which is clearly disruptive.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is within policy not to agree with Xinjao's misrepresentation of sources. He can provide if he has any that would be suitable for the subject. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together. You didn't provided any "link" to his talk page. A frivolous warning from Xinjao should be ignored. I don't have to agree with falsification of sources from Xinjao, but you are telling me to agree. You can ignore the correct argument and lend support to his disruption but you will only find yourself sanctioned, given you were sitebanned and topic banned and now you are under a final warning. Capitals00 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Me and Nadir are active on the Talk page and trying to address your perceived concerns about sources, which is more than I can say for Edward who still hasn't made an appearance after guiding me there. Please explain in the talk page how I am falsifying sources? More sources have been added by another user fyi. Xinjao (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained that on talk page, unlike you I am not fond of repeating over and over. Editors are not obliged to reply to discussion and at least not when you are only engaging in disruption and making a WP:POINT. I have already looked into discussion and everything is still same. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By your own admission, Xinjao on the talk page, you are "combining sources". There is a word for this on Wikipedia: SYNTH. It is not allowed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I wrote Nick, I should have been more clear with that sentence but please don't take my discussion out of context. Its really not fair. I was referring to Lorstakings practice. He is happy using the original sources as the foundation of the article, but then he mixes the sources to change one specific naming convention (Indus valley to Indo-Gangetic plain). I have not added anything thats not clearly mentioned in the original sources. Please review my 2 edits and let me know where I have mixed sources if that's what you have gathered from my post. --Xinjao (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Clearly not what I wrote"?? You exactly wrote "Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Combining sources", asking other editor to engage in WP:SYNTH, since this is all you have been doing until now. Lorstaking's sources meet WP:V, while yours fail it. You have been engaging in this nationalistic POV editing in more than one article,[127] it would be an overkill to take your words without doing research since every time you are caught WP:GAMING. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth would I ask someone to break the rules? And how on earth is the usage of "Indus valley" Nationalistic POV? Its very interesting to me that you consider this nationalistic. Does that mean all the sources I posted are nationalistic? Indus valley is not a nation. Its just a phrase that clearly upsets you. You have been pushing to get me banned from your very first post. Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why people are concerned. That why you are asking others to break rules. It is your ethnic agenda to use "Indian subcontinent" by removing "India",[128] despite not supported by your source, because you believe that it takes away the credit for Pakistan, that didn't even existed in those days. That's how its nationalistic. Clearly "Indus Valley" is not a nation, yet you treat it as a nation as per your edits[129] because it gives you a feeling that you are out to lend credit to Pakistan, which again didn't even existed before 1947. Lorstaking (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For the two articles, I removed the "India" reference in favour of "Indus Valley" because that's what nearly every single source quotes. Your misrepresentation of my edits just shows how biased you are on this topic. Usage of Indus valley does not show ethnic of nationalist bias. You seem to have a big problem quoting sources as they appear. --Xinjao (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet none of the sources support your ethnic agenda driven edits. In place of being this deceptive, just cite the sources but given your incompetence you really can't do that. You are only misrepresenting sources to favor your ethnic POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This post Copied from my talk page - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I saw your comment on the admin page and I really feel that you took my comment out of context. Please note that I have a total of two edits on the page. But to the topic of source mixing, I am trying to understand your views. Where did I mix sources?

On the contrary, the person I am arguing with is happy with the original sources for the foundation of the article, but replacing one specific naming convention? Isnt this the obvious example of source mixing? Really like to hear your thoughts. --Xinjao (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem with Xinjao. He can't understand English language and/or write it properly. Let alone drawing conclusions from these sources, it is just out of his scope at this moment, but unfortunately he is tirelessly pursuing it. He believes that he is putting himself in a better light by throwing empty accusations against others when he is undoubtedly the one with clear competence issues. Lorstaking (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to you and once again I would like Admins to note the petty insults and this users desperate attempts at halting discussion into his edits. Xinjao (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

OK Xinjao, firstly, no one gets to decide who can or cannot comment here, anyone is free to make whatever comments they wish and in response to whatever else is stated or asked by whomsoever to whomsoever. Secondly, I'm afraid I have to agree with Lorstaking in this instance. These comments do indeed seem to indicate that you lack the ability to properly understand English, both that written by others and apparently and more worryingly that which you write yourself. Competence is required and so far your contributions do seem to indicate that this might be your Achilles heel. I feel that this is probably the root of the problem. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My question was directed to you, on your Talk Page Nick. I don't recall giving you permission to post it here under my signature, hence I was clearly not looking for Lorstakings opinion on this. I understand very clearly what he is writing, but disagreeing with his opinion does not mean that I don't "understand English". This is clearly a personal attack Xinjao (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Xinjao, you still don't even understand what is WP:SYNTH,[130] and you are still treating these policies like they are a joke. This comes after you asked me to engage in WP:SYNTH earlier.[131] Since the "question" belonged to ANI and you spuriously attempted to started the discussion on user's talk page,[132] I am allowed to comment on your question. I am allowed to comment on your question even on Nick Thorne's talk page. Provide diffs if you want admins to act about anything. As of now, you are only signifying your incompetence. Lorstaking (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My entire argument is that you are combining sources, which is against the rules. I did not "ask you to engage" in this practice Lorstaking. It's ridiculous that I have to explain this to you. You can comment all you want but since my question was off topic, I posted it on his Talk Page for a reason. I don't appreciate him using my signature in this fashion. Xinjao (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs. Empty accusations are only increasing your chances for getting a block or topic ban. I am not even understanding what you are trying to claim here. But given your incompetence and the fact that you don't understand English, it is just too normal. Why you are being hostile to everyone who is not in favor of your trivial wishes? Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Xinjao, you obviously do not understand the conditions of use under which we work here. We give a permanent, irrevocable licence to everything we write on Wikipedia, including what we write on talk pages. We do not own that material. I copied your post from my talk page, where it did not belong since it was in response to something on this page, and I did it in a completely open way. I stated what I was doing, where it came from and who wrote it.

No possible deception there. Just with your comments on this page you have dug yourself into a hole. Stop digging. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This topic is getting out of hand. Lorstaking made no attempt to resolve any issues on my talk page or the article talk pages and self-admittedly he saw no need to contribute to the article talk pages. I am always open to suggestions and discussion, but these users are now resorting to repeatedly bashing my English as an argument, so I do not see any merit in continuing this. Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve issues on your "talk page"[133] but you won't stop calling every edit a vandalism that you don't like and signify your incompetence. You are still problematic regardless of this thread. People are correct if they are pointing out problems with your poor understanding of English per WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking, I can no longer assume good faith in your edits or your arguments. I have checked your history and it seems you are pushing your nationalist POV on multiple articles. You derail my discussions with baseless accusations for simply using the term "Indus Valley" but your edits are clearly driven by nationalism:

• Twice Removed sourced "Cradle of Civilisation" reference from Pakistan article [134][135]
• Changed another sourced reference by removing "Western Pakistan" in favour of "the subcontinent" [136]
• Removed Indus valley references from History of Pakistan article.[137]
• Removed another reference to Pakistan from the Indus Valley article. [138]
• Changed length of Indus river to give India an extra 2% and removed 2% from Pakistan [139]
  

It's very clear to me that you carry a nationalist agenda Xinjao (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet you are still showing willingness to continue revealing how incompetent how are and care only about your ethnic POV agenda driven edits.

• On Pakistan, a long term disruptive sock sharing your POV was misrepresenting sources despite none of the sources called Pakistan country a cradle of civilization. [140][141] I was reverting the nonsense.
• I made this edit because source didn't supported the earlier and my edit is meaningful, given there are many Neolithic sites are older than Mehrgarh.
• Where did I removed "Indus valley references from History of Pakistan article" in this edit?? I was reverting problematic edits made by an ethnic POV pusher like you[142] who has been topic banned for such edits.
• Where did I removed "Indus valley reference to Pakistan" on this diff?? I had in fact added a source.
• I changed "an extra 2% and removed 2%" per this edit[143]? But evidence shows that I was reverting a new edit[144] that modified the made up stats added by you. Your addition of these false stats removed[145] was removed per discussion on talk.

You can't even speak English. I am astonished that you thought of analyzing my edits after siding with disruptive topic banned socks and POV pushers and you don't even know what is adding or removing references. For you, this nothing but a joke. Lorstaking (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

More emotionally driven petty personal attacks because I dared to analyse your edits. Your edits tell me everything I need to know about your nationalist agenda Lorstaking. You are blatantly targeting Pakistani articles because in your mind you are trying to counterbalance, as clearly expressed in one of your earlier ramblings about "lending credit to Pakistan" This shows your mentality that you treat Wikipedia like a battleground. And now you are proposing an Indef block because I am highlighting your inane edits. Xinjao (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fabricating information is not enough. You have to provide actual evidence for backing up your empty accusations and you are still failing to show even one diff. Given your inability to understand English, you should not be editing English Wikipedia at all, let alone engaging in WP:BATTLE over your desparate ethnic and nationalist POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

I was right to think that someone with so many WP:CIR issues can't actually reform overnight. Xinjao has shown his inability to understand English and has been engaging in ethnic POV pushing,[146][147] WP:BATTLE,[148][149] misrepresentation of sources,[150] calling constructive edits a vandalism.[151][152][153] There are more issues and none of them have been resolved. Throughout this thread he has only signified his incompetence and made false allegations towards others. I dont see why we should continue wasting time on this incompetent editor.

After throwing empty accusations, Xinjao has now resorted to fabricate information about me in place of admitting his mistakes, and this above response was the last straw where he called this edit a removal of "Indus valley references". Even worse that Xinjao went ahead to promote these false allegations and fabrication on the article talk page. [154] This is nothing but clear harassment and also an ideal example of WP:BATTLE. For these many reasons I am proposing an indef block. We can also decide if we should topic ban or decide it upon his return.

• Support indef block as proposer. Lorstaking (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has been digging a hole both in their editing history and in this thread, and it is time to leave them in the hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the accused. I have presented enough diffs to show the User:Lorstaking is committed to a nationalist agenda as seen by his edits with the common theme of removing information; has no patience to discuss his editing; admittedly refused to engage in talk pages; failed to discuss grievances prior to raising this request; obsessed with banning from day one and has continuously insulted my English. --Xinjao (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

By deliberately misrepresenting my edits you have only signified your incompetence and revealed your desparation for your ethnic and nationalist POV pushing. Same with these other false accusations that you continue to throw without evidence. Keep giving us more reasons to get rid of you. Lorstaking (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I'm going to have to agree with this. This conversation spanning multiple threads hasn't been going anywhere and has become toxic. Given this editors recent actions as was previously discussed including leaving a superfluous threat on my (talkpage), I no longer have the confidence of this user's ability to maintaining a neutral POV. It is not the job of the editor to promote a political POV, but only to report what is the scholarly consensus. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

EdwardElric2016 I agree that I may have overreacted towards you. For that at least, I apologise, but I would have appreciated if you discussed things on the talk page before reverting edits. --Xinjao (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Xinjao I reverted those edits because you were making massive changes to the Cradle of Civilization article without gaining a consensus which is why I undid them and recommended that you resolve the matter in the talk page. I didn't engage because I believed it wasn't only my place to decide on this issue but simply to enforce the consensus. I was waiting for other people to respond to this topic especially administrators who usually have the final say. I do however accept your apology and wish things went differently. I do kind of agree that this recommendation for a block came a little too quickly for my tastes but given your disruptive history on other articles, rules have to be enforced. I do however hope you learn from this and become a more productive editor in the future if you return after the block is lifted assuming it passes and if it is even lifted at all. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes EdwardElric2016. I understand your reasoning and I agree on the consensus part, but please note that my edit was an undoing of Lorstakings original edit from October.[155] --Xinjao (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Xinjao You shouldn't have immediately reverted Lorstaking's edit and should have instead discussed it in the talk page. Considering that Lorstaking's edit was supported by credible sources and that it had been on the article for several months without any issues prior to your reversion, it became accepted as the consensus position. Again you should have brought this up in the talk page before reverting anything that has been accepted for a while and backed up by credible sourcing. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on the revert EdwardElric2016. Let's agree to disagree on the sources. Your support for this extreme measure is unfortunate because I realise you are one of the few neutral contributors. Under normal circumstances I am a lot more understanding of constructive feedback, but on this occasion you are in the good company of a user who falsely accused me of sockpuppeting not long ago, another one who has bashed my english eight times on this very page and a bunch of known POV pushers who believe that (I quote the words) "my edits are lending support to Pakistan". This has obviously resulted in a toxic discussion. --Xinjao (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Throwing around groundless accusations of vandalism is completely unacceptable and sanctionable in itself, but then Xinjao has been doing it recklessly for years now.[156][157][158][159][160] I'm astonished as to how he managed to evade sanctions in the past. That, coupled with the issues of nationalist editing and WP:CIR are reason enough to indefinitely block this disruption only account. —MBL ^Talk 07:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As you have falsely accused me of Sock puppeting just a few months ago [161], you should not be so astounded as to why I was not sanctioned when your arguements did not hold water. --Xinjao (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral I think a TBAN from any WP:ARBIPA topics (India or Pakistan) is necessary if this doesn't pass, but I'm not yet convinced that an indef block is needed. The problem of referring to content disagreements as "vandalism" should be solvable. Beyond that, I see POV-pushing regarding terminology to refer to India more than anything else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

He is not interested in anything else other than this particular subject and considers every comment to be a personal attack where someone is telling him about his mistakes. By telling him that he should prove that he can contribute elsewhere we will only increase workload for others, given his lack of understanding of English language and use of Wikipedia for battles. That's why I found indef block to be a better solution for this problem. He can be topic banned upon his return, but right now he needs some time off-Wikipedia and carefully read the policies before editing again. Lorstaking (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support CIR, simply checking out the editor's contributions to this thread it is apparent that he is misinterpreting practically everything. The other editor is not doing what Xinjao claims. Add to that, he appears to be editing to push a nationalistic agenda which makes me wonder if he is really NOTHERE. Indef him and add the condition that if he gets unblocked it is subject to a topic ban on subcontinent material, broadly construed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. Only here for nationalistic POV pushing and creating toxic conversations. Capitals00 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, and recommend discarding entire thread per power~enwiki. Indef blocks aren't a joke. There's a proper process for escalation which is adequately provided under WP:ARBIPA, and includes other solutions. And frankly I haven't seen evidence of any of those solutions being tried, let alone lesser sanctions like TBANS. But that is the worst case scenario. This appears to be more a dispute resolution issue which should have been taken to DRN or another neutral noticeboard first. But it wasn't, so how do we come to that conclusion? Also, it is rather ironic that the users accusing this user of "nationalist" editing are more or less guilty of the same themselves; or to be slightly moderate, have less than stellar records of the same issues. This really isn't the way to resolve content disputes. One only needs to read through the uncivil personal attacks above thrown left and right, and I'm surprised an admin hasn't jumped in already to close out this ugly WP:SOUP. This entire thread and "indef block proposal", IMO, is a farce. Regardless, let's leave the judgement with those 'competent' to make the final call. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"per power~enwiki"? You are misrepresenting his position because he supported the topic ban. You need to better stop justifying disruption by making empty accusations because you have been doing this too often for defending disruptive POV pushers of this area.[162] We don't need those who lack competence, and your opinion lacks rationale which is evidenced by your massive block log for disruption in this very same subject and years of deceptive sock puppetry.[163] Lorstaking (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The above comment exactly proves my point regarding WP:BATTLE and problematic, WP:TENDENTIOUS editors like you. Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment proves that only a disruptive long term sock abuser like you would welcome disruption of incompetent editors with ethnic POV agenda, due to your own lack of WP:COMPETENCE as further evidenced by your block log as well. Lorstaking (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(Sigh) As I have no mood to engage, I'm going to leave this mockery of a thread here. Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What really convinced you to leave a spurious warning[164] on my talk page and engage in admin shopping[165]? I am going to consider this to be an extension of your incompetence. Lorstaking (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Precisely the above. Mar4d (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Since not even a lengthy ANI report could bring any change in his disruptive behavior, there is zero doubt that Xinjao is a net negative with these gross WP:CIR issues including his continued battleground mentality. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have not made any article edits for the last 5 days, your observation is questionable. A total of 2 edits prompted Lorstaking to raise an ANI, which is step 6 in dealing with [Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]. Xinjao (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So that means you are allowed to cause disruption everywhere else only because you are not editing main articles in last couple of days. How come you can ignore entire history of your disruption? Thanks for making my vote look even more meaningful. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking from the above, Lorstaking is certainly a problem editor. I just hope all the issues will be dealt out with across the board before this becomes a long-term conduct issue. I don't have much hope, if I'm pessimistic. Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to post evidence for that and so far I can only see that you are desperately defending a POV editor. If you can't deal with the constructive criticism regarding your disruption and your support for disruption then you should avoid such discussions all together. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me, this has little to do with "defending" or for that matter "supporting" anyone. It's more about a collective WP:BATTLE mentality, which I just observe in a much larger context and which has existed for a long time unfortunately. Please don't attempt to justify the immature behavior above under "constructive criticism". That's a very petty thing to do. Mar4d (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes the criticism was constructive to point out problems with your entirely flawed argument that why you are the only one person who is trying to support Xinjao and thinks that this thread should be closed when we are seeing a disruptive POV pusher who lacks competence and continues to stick to his battleground mentality and falsify evidence against others. Such an "immature behavior" from you to defend such an editor was completely unwarranted and only made you look desparate. If you believe in assuming bad faith towards a serious report, make accusations without diffs and wish that others should not talk about your blocks and issues then you really need to do something else. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose any block or any topic ban This is a dispute that can be easily sorted out. How many complaints have there been against this user by neutral, uninvolved individuals? I don't see any. I also noticed before that people propose bans and sanctions for users citing past blocks without even examining each block case individually and it's circumstances (such as my cases). But if we go by that reasoning, this user has not been blocked despite facing numerous kinds of accusations. All of these not surprisingly stem from opposition to constant disruptive editing by certain Indian users who engage in soap boxing across Pakistani pages in clear violation of WP:NPOV (a problem which dates over a decade with little being done about it, other than handing out topic bans to Pakistani users as opposed to upholding WP:NPOV across the India-Pakistan topic area as should be). The topic ban proposal is equally ridiculous. Each time an India-Pakistan dispute breaks out, topic ban proposals are put fourth by Indian POV pushers (and at times their supporters) to eliminate or reduce the chances of resistance from Pakistani editors while they free desecrate article after article with propaganda. It's not surprise to me that people endorsing a block/ban on him are in fact themselves nationalistic POV pushers across Pakistani pages alone such as Capitals00. The user in question has made repeated attempts to address his concerns about sourcing yet is threatened with the prospect of being banned. If this user turns out to be wrong with regards to sourcing, he can do with a warning or a request to deeper re-access sourcing policy, but for the time being it does not seem to be the case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• This was not a content dispute but conduct dispute and you significantly supported disruption of Xinjao since you are a long term disruptive POV pusher yourself with gross WP:CIR issues. Clearly you are a part of problem as well with all your ethnic and nationalist feuds, viewing editors as "Indian", "Pakistani", despite you were sitebanned by Arbcom for this disruption.[166] It seems as though you never really reformed and still believe that you get outnumbered because of some unknown reasons. But actual reasons are that you are a disruptive POV pusher and by defending incompetent editors like Xinjao you are only creating problems, even if you believe you are working for your "resistance". D4iNa4 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This most recent diff from Lorstalking [167] is POV tendentious editing on his part. He may need a TBAN from this area as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki Thats utter nonsense. Lorstaking is absolutely correct with his comment. You can check the sources present on the article as well as sources provided by other editors on talk page. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Parts of the Indus Valley Civilization, such as Mohenjo-daro were undoubtedly in modern-day Pakistan. It's not a WP:OR violation or a WP:SYNTH violation to interpret references to "India" as referring to the entire subcontinent, and I find it possibly in bad faith to argue such. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As usual that's utter nonsense. We can only write what reliable sources are saying in place of making up our own half baked opinion. Indian subcontinent is more than just Pakistan and India. All reliable sources say India and we can only mention it.[168] A lot of these POV pushers change Indian subcontinent to South Asia because of "Indian" term. Don't think about finding sense in these lame arguments. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4, that is utter nonsense, given that arbitrator was himself a POV pusher and was later rumored to be under investigation for harassment. Abrcom decisions themselves have been controversial and opposed, even by administrators. I'll be more than happy to share the diffs if you do so insist. That arbcom case was filed minutes by an admin after I reported him right here on ANI. Your comment about me being nationalistic is also an accusation that holds no ground as I have good relations with many Indians, including administrators, giving them an awards. I am careful to distinguish between Indian and nationalistic Indian POV. Even today the ban is contestable when it comes from abcoms who consist of supporters rather than actual arbitrators.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No one, but only you in your dream world will believe that the ban wasn't justified and I better recall that your unban was in fact opposed by others[169] since they deemed that you were incompetent to ever reform. They were correct, because even after unban you have been frequently blocked and like it has been linked above [170] you are still under a last warning for your mass disruption. Even today you are working on "resistance" by supporting this incompetent Xinjao, in place of contributing in harmony. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your misleading statements again including that my unban was "opposed" by others and many users including Folwer&fowler who hasa great reputation here as well as Dbachman think otherwise. I think I'll follow Mar4d's example and ignore you from now on as you are clear on turning this into a battleground while faking the under guise of "harmony" when all you seem to stand for is non-neutral POV pushing.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That gibberish probably gives you a sleep at night but it has no value when it comes to reality. None of these "many users" from your dream land defended you, I don't see any of them in this report where you got warned for your continued disruption. It means the fake fan base that you are trying to imagine, actually has no existence in reality. No wonder you have to defend xinjao, an incompetent POV pusher like yourself, for getting "resistance". D4iNa4 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Even after seeing enough support for indefinite block, he is still badgering and showing his inability to hear what others are saying.[171] This is a case of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. NadirAli's comments that Xinjao is useful as defense against "Indian users" shows battleground mentality of these problematic users. One can never argue in favor of these problematic users without deceiving others or being problematic than Xinjao, and that is already too apparent here. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully someone investigates you [172][173] Xinjao (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef because he isn't WP:HEARING and clearly not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Comment like 'defence against Indians' increases suspicion. I suggest to keep an eye on User:NadirAli and User:Mar4d too. Störm (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed to ban Complainant should consider following the basics before having come here: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing--Emir of aleppo (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to write anything except address the deliberate mis-wording of my sentiments about "Defense against Indians". If only that were true. People can't swallow the truth so they misword others opposed to their constant POV pushing and soapboaxing. Also note some of the above mudslinging comments. If I or Mar4d had made or responded with similar comments, there would have been no doubt a storm cast in mine or Mar4d's direction, but users representing the larger crowd get a free pass to do so. But hey, welcome to Wikipedia. That's the way favoritism flourishes here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (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.

PERMISSION ERROR while trying to create page

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

---

Administratot on duty

-EEng

Hi everybody,

I`m new to editing and creating pages on wiikipedia. I just edited a page and thought it wasn`t much of a big deal to create a page since I have my article ready. I`m humbly requesting that an Administratot help me create the page. This is the error message I`m receiving: Permission error You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayoolu (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dayoolu firstly we would need to know what page you are attempting to create as there are a large number of creation protected pages. Secondly we would need to know what it is your going to be adding to the page before we can create it. If you create the page as either a draft or in your Sandbox we can then move it when ready to the appropriate location. Amortias (T)(C) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is the same person we saw a couple of days ago. That said, I see nothing in the title blacklist log and nothing in the general logs under that username. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296 § Ryan Hampton (Author) for the previous incident. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This user is most likely tripping a title blacklist. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 17 February 2018 (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:112.210.68.217

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:112.210.68.217 apparently introduced pieces of subtle hoax into various articles in October 2017, one of which in the prominent article Arabic I discovered only yesterday. There is probably no action against the user (IP) needed at this moment, but I gave him a (first) warning and most importantly someone should check his other contributions to see whether any other malicious edits have survived to this day. I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, so don't know whether this is the best place to report, but I can't check it all myself and thought that letting others know would be good. --Blahma (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Blahma: The (dynamic) IP was active from October 6th to 10th last year. Apart from correcting the offending edit (I presume it's this one) and checking other edits, there's not much anyone can do, I'm afraid. Kleuske (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. And I would be happy if somebody checked those other edits, because there might be more hoaxes by this user still lying around, like the one I have found and fixed. If there was a template to mark a past vandal or a page to list users whose contributions require a check, I would have posted there instead (my home Wikipedia has a page for such kind of reports). --Blahma (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's edits, I discovered this one, where they replaced the name of the Slovenian PM with that of the President as participating in a summit meeting. After much searching, I found this report, which makes it clear that it was indeed the PM who attended. This makes me very uneasy about the IP's many edits to Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro, which consist of unsourced additions to the list of those attending. I cannot find a list of those attending, but I am very sceptical about those added by the IP, and I think that they should all be removed. I suspect that the same is true of their similar edits to other imternational meetings.

The IP's incorrect removal of the UK from the list of OECD members was swiftly reverted, as was their similar removal of the UK from membership of the Eastern Partnership. The IP has also edited to claim that Syria borders Kyrgyzstan,[174] that Arabic is an official language of the European Union,[175] and that Burundi is a Mediterranean state.[176]

Given all this, I propose that all of the IP's edits are reverted as vexatious trolling. Is there a bot that can carry out this sort of task? RolandR (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/49.147.42.49 appears to be the same troll, not exactly sure how a bot could do it, only about 30-40 edits so undo manually.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

All the additions to death and state funeral of fidel castro appear to have been reverted anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I note that this IP was reported to AIV by Dukwon for this behaviour last October, but that no action was taken. The complaint suggests that this is a known IP-hopping vandal. This type of vandalism is hard to detect, but the net effect can be to flood Wikipedia with false information, and it is necessary to find a way to deal with this if we want to preserve some integrity. RolandR (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (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 reported at OTRS 2018021110003395

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

---

This link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_II#/media/File:WORMELEY(1893)_p259_Sultan_Abdul_Hamid_II.jpg shows the name "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan" under the image of "Abdul Hamid II". I just can't find where that name is located! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to the ticket. I'm not sure if it was intentionally done, as it appears to be miscaption from this template ([177]). It should be fixed now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was hunting around wikidata, assuming it was some sneaky vandal. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (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.

angry troll is harassing my page

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

---

Hello,

A few months back someone began adding slanderous paragraphs to my wikipedia page, after a few tweets of mine were used in a new york times article about the closing of a broadway show. The last time they did this, an admin reverted everything and the page was semi protected, but this person has started up again. I have deleted what they posted in, but they tend to get an alert and just repost it back. Can it be semi-protected again?

Thank you!

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcasal (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page to cut down on the problems. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 05:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unarchived. There's definitely some WP:OWN going on here, and that article is as atrocious a WP:MYSPACE violation as I've seen in recent years. While I agree the content OP is complaining about doesn't belong, it's certainly not slanderous, and isn't much farther out of step with our policies than anything else in the article... just that it's something the article subject doesn't like. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Rafael Casal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  It's perfectly acceptable for Rafaelcasal to revert (diff) edits by an SPA here to settle scores. Their edits in January were very minor and again fine. I don't see any "ownership". There are plenty of fluffy articles and this can be cleaned like the others, but the reason for the original post was valid and the issue has been resolved for now, although the article history shows that the SPA will return. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Casal. It is highly unlikely that the WP:SPAs who created and edited this article are not in some way connected with the subject. It see-saws between hit piece and PR biography, as is not uncommon for bios with marginal notability. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

IP user leaving disruptive edit summaries; many of which are dummy edits

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.

---

104.32.200.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user is making a number of edits in which the IP calls out other Wikipedia users. See, for example, [178], [179], [180], [181], and [182]. The edits aren't vandalism per se, as the IP often makes a dummy edit (not really a true dummy edit, but they're dummy edits in that the user will make a change on the page with a disruptive edit summary, then immediately revert the edit back with another disruptive edit summary). The IP also makes a number of other disruptive comments in edit summaries, such as [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], and [192]. I left messages on the IP's user talk page asking them to stop calling out other users in edit summaries, but the user has done so at least twice after the warnings. I'm not sure if the IP user just doesn't grasp that what they're doing is disruptive, or if the IP is trending toward WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR. Aside from this, the editor does make some constructive edits, though finding them can be difficult between all of the IP's dummy edits. Can an admin keep an eye on this user and take action if the behavior continues? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. This user's conduct and editing behavior is absolutely not acceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah, for your quick action. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I hid some of the edit summaries, feel free to identify any others. Admins can do this direct from a diff, so post diffs by all means. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that, Guy, much appreciated. I skimmed through the user's contributions (not very carefully), and I think the only other instance of the user calling out other editors is at this diff. Thanks again for your help. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2018 (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.

Pattern of adding factually false claims to articles

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

---

This report concerns the editor Little Bizarre Dio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Prior to my encounters with this editor, other editors had raised concerns about Little Bizarre Dio adding unsourced content to articles. This in itself is no big deal, if not ideal.

However, over the Christmas period this editor's contributions became more troublesome, when they added demonstrably false content to an article and fabricated some sources to conceal the deception. I raised this issue on their talk page. To keep this report brief I won't regurgitate the issue here, but the discussion regarding the edits (with the appropriate diffs) can be found at User_talk:Little_Bizarre_Dio#Adding_fake_data_and_sources. I asked them for an explanation, but none was forthcoming.

This episode had slipped my mind, until the editor's talk page started popping up on my watchlist again today. Both SummerPhDv2.0 and Dave Dial have raised concerns about this editor adding dozens of factually inaccurate categories to music articles. The gist of the problem is demonstrated here, the scale of it can be appreciated by studying their contribution history over the last 24 hours.

I think it is time to stop giving this editor the benefit of the doubt. It is one thing for an inexperienced editor to add unsourced content, but we know that experience isn't the issue here because the editor is able to fabricate sources when it suits their agenda. The editor never responds to concerns raised on their talk page which makes it difficult to make headway with these issues. I know it is not my place to suggest sanctions, but I think a lengthy block should be considered, at least until this editor shows a willingness to engage with other editors and observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- Yes, this editor seemed to be making edits that are not backed up by sources. So I looked at their Talk page and edit history & it's a pattern. To make matters worse, they do not respond to inquiries or give any reasons. A block until viable explanations are given is warranted. This seems like either sneaky vandalism, disrupting on purpose or competence. Dave Dial (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor indefinitely for the persistent addition and modification of content, as well as the modification of article categories - without providing any references or sources. I feel that with the level of changes this user is making and at the rate they were doing so, an unblock appeal must be filed and a discussion had with the user before we return editing privileges back to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's probably the most prudent course of action. That way if the editor wants to explain themselves & better understands Wiki policies, they can be unblocked. If not, the account is blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I ran across the editor's addition of Category:Music memes to a lengthy list of songs where the article gave no indication that they were in any way connected to significant memes. didn't get a chance to comment. :( - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 - Haha... you know, you can still comment even though the user is now blocked. There's no "sacred rule" that says you can't... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

'S okay. You saw a problem, dug a hole and pushed it in. Problem solved. Ill feeding my need to kvetch with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_17#Category:Music_memes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:31, 18 February 2018 (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.

Bunt (community) slow edit war going on

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 suggest everyone involved take a break and have a nice piece of Bundt (cake)

-EEng

Sourced content from reputable scholars is being removed for last 2-3 days. Can admins look into this issue.Linguisticgeek (talk)

I removed the vandal aspersion in the section header you created. It looks like you are one of the participants in the edit war. NeilN has fully protected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected the wrong version and participants warned of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did rollback and did not want to get into an edit war. I don't understand why sourced content gets removed on Wikipedia all the time. Most editors who come on India related pages just remove content if it does not fit their POV.Anyway I know about the sanctions already and therfore wanted the admins to have a look . Cheers!Linguisticgeek (talk)

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.

Serious WP:CIR issues with User:Geo_Swan

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

---

Just came across this, we need to have a good look at User:Geo_Swan and decide if this individual should even continue to be allowed to edit here. Their latest battle surrounds the inclusion of a an event involving a security guard who wore a hoodie and accidentally shot themselves in the article Hoodie. This has crossed the line into ridiculousness. Talk:Hoodie#St_Catherine's_University. TheGreatWikiGeorge (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Content dispute, see WP:NPA before citing WP:CIR so recklessly. And I'm saying this as an admin that would block on CIR grounds more often if I could get away with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, it's funny that OP's only actions are specifically to oppose Geo Swan's actions. Almost like this is a WP:SPA sockpuppet created to WP:HOUND a user. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE only because WP:SOCK would require bothering a CU for a case that's obviously not their first account. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The OP is very likely a sockpuppet only here to voice opposition to Geo Swan's actions. They also have a point. Geo Swan is one of the most obstinate and long-winded editors I have encountered. As for competence, see Talk:Helen S. Mayberg#Expert witness section. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to post a note similar to what WLC just posted. I've seen Geo Swan repeatedly add problematic content, and when such content gets reverted, he launches into a long tirade - not a defense of his edits, but a statement about how he feels editing should take place (and it can be in a way that doesn't reflect his own habits, but is what he demands of others.) There may be places in which he's quite useful, I don't know, but he is quite frustrating to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 February 2018 (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.

Overpaid, oversexed, and over here

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.

---

• Overpaid, oversexed, and over here Page deleted.
• https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:thzw1J6YFDEJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpaid,_oversexed,_and_over_here
• http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/books/oversexed-overfed-over-here.html
• https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/oversexed-overpaid-and-over-here.html

64.175.40.231 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• It was deleted because a banned editor created it. Assuming you aren't them, however, you are in the wrong forum. WP:DRV is over there... --> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 19 February 2018 (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.

Renew a rangeblock, please

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 range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:EA50:7FD0:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked twice, but the latest one expired. The person is back disrupting articles about childrens' books and illustrators. Can we block the range again? Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued 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.

---

There has been persistent unconstructive editing on the Yonggary (1999 film) article by an anonymous IP user called User talk:104.57.183.127. This IP user has also used other alternative anonymous IP's such as Special:Contributions/2600:1700:210:1450:6551:CB7F:3D6E:7566, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:210:1450:BDAC:17D3:522D:7CF7, and Special:Contributions/2600:1700:210:1450:34CD:6229:D24C:B86B. The reason why I assume these last three IP's are the same as User:104.57.183.127 is because all the edits are identical. This user has been warned and blocked dozens of times yet he/she still continues to vandalize the same pages as before. He has been blocked 3 days, then blocked 1 week, then blocked 1 month. It's pretty clear nothing is getting through. Armegon (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2018 (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:Chrome2005

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.

---

Chrome2005 keeps making disruptive edits; adding incorrect info. I reported him at WP:AIV, but nothing happened. [193] [194] [195] [196] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2018 (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 uncivil behavior by User:Rovingrobert

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. Rovingrobert is exhibiting a very poor (disruptive and uncivil) behavior:

1. He changed IPA transcriptions of foreign surnames from how the names are pronounced in English to how he thinks they're supposed to be pronounced: [197], [198], [199]. In the case of the second link, the response to my edit summary was I won't stop doing shit, bitch (EDIT: Here's another one: [200]).

2. He removed the pronunciation of Bjorn Fratangelo, saying that not everything needs a fucking IPA transcription. This surname does, its pronunciation isn't terribly straightforward.

3. He was edit-warring with me over the inclusion of [ʃ, ʒ] in transcriptions of Spanish (see [201] and [202] as well as [203] and [204]). In some cases, I just reverted him without being reverted again - see [205], [206], [207], [208] and [209]. The problem is that transcriptions enclosed within the IPA-es template link to Help:IPA/Spanish which doesn't really mention [ʒ] and uses [ʃ] in a very different manner. It took me some time to convince this guy to raise the issue on Help talk:IPA/Spanish. You can see for yourself how he worded what he wrote.

4. In his thread on Help talk:IPA/Spanish, he misrepresented the issue with the user LoveVanPersie, whose lack of WP:COMPETENCE (I can't call it differently) is wasting the time of other editors, myself included - see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#LoveVanPersie's transcriptions. It's quite strange how people who bring this up (he's the second person to do that within the last two days, which is also quite strange) when they talk to me or about me always forget how I spent hours and hours helping LVP with IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

His response to this edit was fuk ya.

Do you think it'd be worth checking if RR is a sockpuppet of G-Zay? The reason I think this might be him is that for the last 6 months I've been successfully spotting G-Zay's sockpuppets and getting them banned via SI. He got aggressive with me only recently, calling me a harrasser and a loser for calling him out. It's suspicious how the insults, edit-warring and the misrepresentation of the issue with LVP happened a day before Rovingrobert started doing the same to me. Before that, he was perfectly nice to me: User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_4#Greetings, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_5, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_13#Hello. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that-way. I don't know IPA so I can't determine what's going on with those edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, just about no one knows IPA, which raises the question of why we clutter the first few words of so many articles with pronunciation guides useless to almost everyone. EEng 08:38, 18 February 2018 (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:Rickyc123 gaming the system - part 2

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:Rickyc123 was previously brought to ANI for his gaming the system behavior. Rundown on Rickyc123's past behavior:

1) Rickyc123 copied drafts (Polo Reyes, Devin Clark (fighter), Danielle Taylor (fighter), Darren Till) that were awaiting review in the WP:AfC process to create his own articles in June 2017. He was warned about it and apologized and claimed he wouldn't do it again (1 2), and was informed by User:PRehse that: "Its best practice that if a draft is waiting for review it should be left (better to alter the draft than create another article) but failing that you can still move it into article space with the move tab (top right). That way attribution is maintained and toes don't get stepped on. Copy paste should be avoided at all costs. Just saying."

2) Rickyc123 copied yet more drafts (Age Before Beauty (TV series), Yellowstone (U.S. TV series), Kerman Lejarraga, Caleb Konley) after the above incident, despite demonstrating that he now does know how to move drafts. Rickyc123 was also copy-and-pasting articles to his own redirect pages (with no content) with a slightly different name, and redirecting those original article to his own, instead of just moving the original article to the "improved" name (e.g. his article 2017 Java earthquake was copied-and-pasted from 2017 West Java earthquake, and redirected the latter to his own).

3) One of these copied drafts was my own. I then warned Rickyc123 in December 2017 about this inappropriate copy-and-pasting behavior. He removed my message indicating he read it. All the above articles have since been histmerged.

4) In January 2017, he yet again copies-and-pastes from The Ultimate Fighter 27 to create his own article The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated (which was a redirect with no content), and turned the former into a redirect to his own copied article instead. Note that those two articles have seen been histmerged.

There were apparently other issues/incidences as well (such as mass creating inappropriate redirects), as brought up by User:CASSIOPEIA in the previous ANI, which resulted in User:Swarm giving him a formal warning.

I believe Rickyc123 is still gaming the system, albeit going about it in a smarter way now. He recently created an article that I believe is based heavily on a draft currently undergoing the WP:AfC process, this time at least making an effort to paraphrase and add a bit of new content. The similarities between the first revision of Kalindra Faria and the last revision of Draft:Kalindra Faria are unmistakable in my opinion, especially if you compare the infobox parameters and the mixed martial arts record table in the source editor page.

These two sentences for comparison:

• From Draft:Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216: Ferguson vs. Lee against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."

• From Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216 against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."

The almost exact same wording, the exact same sentence structure, the same grammatical error ("drugs test" instead of "drug test"), the same missing word ("made her UFC at UFC 2016" is missing the word debut), and both linked to the same incorrect Andrea Lee instead of Andrea Lee (fighter). Other suspiciously similar word choices like “fellow promotional newcomer” in the following sentence (the cited source does not use that term so it wasn’t copied from the source). Yet Rickyc123 claims to have never seen the draft prior to creating the article. You can read our conversation at his talk page, where he tries to explain the similarities. I do not buy his explanation. From the almost exact sentences above and the similarities between the infoboxes (exact same parameters including the birth_date parameter that uses “df” and the reach_in parameter that were used in the draft but Rickyc123 has not used in his previous UFC fighters articles) and the mixed martial arts record table, it seems clear to me that Rickyc123 saw the draft that is undergoing the WP:AfC process and rather than waiting for it to be approved/rejected at AfC, created his own article based heavily on the draft instead so as to game the system and get more articles credited to him with minimal effort on his part, while also wasting the efforts of other editors. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the situation at Kalindra Faria is unambiguously a violation by Rickyc123. In addition to whatever block is deemed necessary, I think an indefinite prohibition on creating articles when a draft of the same name exists is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated, the simpler prohibition is better. Even if there is a standard-offer compatible block here, I think the prohibition on article creations should be separate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've left Rickyc123 unblocked so they can participate here but left a clear warning that any more article creations before this thread is resolved will result in a block. [210] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

He should just be moving the drafts. We have enough work to do at AfC without someone duplicating the pages into mainspace while we evaluate them. The mainspace versions should be G12 Copyvio deleted and the Drafts replace them. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to request for User:Rickyc123 to look through his past articles and come clean if he can remember any others that were copied from other editors' drafts so that the appropriate histmerges can be done. I previously requested he do this in December 2017 after realizing he had copied one of my drafts. He removed my message and did not reply, which led to me investigating some of his past articles and requesting histmerges for the copied drafts I found listed above (except for the Darren Till draft which had already been deleted, admin Anthony Appleyard found that one at the previous ANI). However, if there were drafts that were under slightly different names and/or have since been deleted under WP:G13 (this behavior has been going on for over 6 months), then there is a chance we missed them and it'll be difficult to find these drafts without Rickyc123's help. Obviously he cannot be forced to help, but it would be a nice gesture. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

From the history presented here, there is no way to assume good faith about their actions. The behavior is not simply 'gaming the system' it is flat out plagiarism and copyright violation. We indef editors who are serial copyright violators. Just because the violation is internal and no one is going to sue Wikipedia is not a reason to be be soft on this type of behavior. I would go further and say that repeatedly creating redirects and copying others' work to falsely show 'creation' of the article exhibits a level of deception and bad faith that should not be accepted in this project no matter the length of the editor's service or their other contributions. Indef and move on. The project does not need this type of "contribution". Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing before we get started is all the things in the previous ANI, I admit to and I know I have done wrong. Second is that I'm not so stupid as to copy a draft days after I've just got warned from doing it, if you compare the differences between mine and the drafts they're completely different. Including the infobox and MMA record section. (I actually believe there's is better) and if I had copied I'd have used the more superior version. As for the drug and drugs test thing. While it may officially be drug test, everyone says drugs test. Also if you look at any MMA article it tells you about opponents using that format. All promotional newcomers are referred to as promotional newcomers. And your whole basis of you saying I copied is based off 10 words in a 100+ word article that took me about 3 hours to make(what other evidence other than that sentence is there of me copying) and I will admit to the fact that I never manually enter the format on Wikipedia, I always copy and paste infoboxes and MMA record tables from other articles. And change it so it applies to that MMA fighter. If I was copying and pasting don't you think I would have checked it for mistakes before I put it on, when you look at revisions they are completely different I've got things they have and they've got things I haven't. As for the asking about drafts and stuff:

• There aren't any drafts left that haven't been sorted.

The ones I know but don't know if they've been sorted are:

• Darren Till
• Marco Polo Reyes
• Devin Clark
• Danielle Taylor (fighter)

As for the copy and paste thing where I changed the Article to an alternative name, I did that with West Java Earthquake, The Ultimate Fighter 27 and 2017 Washington train derailment.

As for articles which have been changed into articles after I've made them redirects, there is :

• Dan Ige
• Saparbek Safarov
• Frank Camacho
• Tim Williams (fighter)

All darts and Australian Open articles it says I made are also redirects I made that people changed into articles.

I've made Calvin Kattar, David Ramos(I know he hasn't had his 3 fights yet but he will have by UFC 224) and Deiveson Figueiredo articles so can someone let me know on my talk page when I'm allowed to put on articles again so I can drop them.

I'm actually going on holiday to Pakistan for a family wedding (The flight is 12 tomorrow UK time) and I don't know what the WiFi is like down there (cos I'm staying with family in a small village and not a hotel). So if I don't respond to anything said it's not because I'm not cooperating. I'm due back Monday 27th. So I might not respond before then.

One last thing, I've said it before but I'd like to reiterate all of the things said in the last ANI are true and I am guilty of a lot of things but I have done no wrongdoing in this Kalindra Faria article, I didn't copy her draft or use her draft, If people actually look at the comparisons between the article when I made it and the draft. They are in no.way similar. I'm not so unintelligent that if I were to reoffend I'd do it only days after the ANI had closed and I had got my warning. I don't believe people are actually looking at the revisions and comparing them, they are reading what is said in here and User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied and as soon as I found out this ANI had started my heart dropped cos i know noone is gonna side with me because of my history. I'm not gonna lie as a 23 year old man I was genuinely upset and angered when this time when I actually did nothing wrong. I was accused of copying. Is this what it's gonna be like every time I make a new article. What upset me more is the article took me 3 hours to make, I was only half paying attention to the Newcastle Vs Manchester United that was on while I was making it and after all that time of me making it. But rather than getting a thanks( which I don't really expect or want for that matter, that is not why I edit) I get it thrown back in my face saying that I've copied and pasted even though the two articles are vastly different. And I'm not even even going to say that I copied it but improved it a little because that would be a lie. They have got loads of good information that I haven't included. And of I were to copy I'd use all of their best bits and add in my own stuff. But when you actually look at the articles rather than reading this ANI, you will see that we use completely different sources, he's got more info in his infobox, we've got different extra notes in the MMA box, he's got a load of redlinks and my revision didn't have any. Plus the overall actual content is different. Just to reiterate after this me not saying anything on this ANI is not me being uncooperative, I am just going to a family wedding in Pakistan and I don't know how the internet is there.Rickyc123 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123

@Rickyc123: "User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied" I did not have "nothing to say". I just did not buy your explanation and figured that if that was all your had to offer than there was no point continuing the heated conversation on your talk page. Also, I brought up more than just "those 10 words" (it's actually 40 words by the way). Bennv3771 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through your past articles as I requested. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I compared the wiki text of the version where the bulk of material was added [211] to the draft as it existed at that time [212]. The infobox and table are identical except for cosmetic changes on three lines. No differing fields between the two. I am confident the infobox and table were plagerized and the claim it was not is at best a deceptive untruth.

  There is change in the prose. However its independence from the original has been questioned above. Regardless, even if the prose were 100% original Rickyc123 knowingly appropriated a huge amount of another editor's work.

  Wikipedia makes it very easy to build upon the work of others, in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about. Willfully claiming another editor's work as one's own is inexcusable. Doing so repeatedly and after being warned about it is, in my opinion, one of the few unforgivable acts an editor of Wikipedia can commit. Jbh ^Talk 02:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to add that there have been other behavioral issues as well. Such as creating inappropriate redirects, then recreating them immediately after they were deleted. Also, removing, without any explanation, my comment attributing the article to its original author on the talk pages of two articles (1 2) he copied (this was when I thought they couldn't be histmerged due to parallel page histories, they've been histmerged now though). Bennv3771 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - Article creation ban

I'm not convinced Rickyc123 needs to be blocked beyond the voluntary 2 week break he appears to be on. I do feel that an indefinite prohibition on article creation is necessary. Even if I take Ricky's statement at face value, the WP:CIR inability to find drafts for articles is problematic.

• Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Sanctions should probably wait for Rickyc123's return. Also, from the lack of input here, I doubt anything will come of this and it will be archived long before that.

  That said, I do not know that I feel confident this would address the behavior at issue. My concern is that, from the evidence given, this looks to be an editor who has repeatedly taken the work of other editors and effectively claimed it as their own. Not only is this a violation of core Wikipedia policy and repugnant to academic/social norms, it activly causes harm to the fabric of the project. Others put a lot of work into their drafts, from identifying the subject to the drudgery of compiling and writing the tables in this, most recent, article. To have someone remove all credit for that work in the article history by copy/paste recreations must be extremely disheartening and, I surmise, leave a very poor taste about their future Wikipedia participation.

  I am disinclined to believe assurances by this editor that they will not do it again because I do not find their claim, after previously being warned about other articles, of not copying the table believable. Maybe I am missing something and there is some way that two, effectivly identical, tables - one springing fully formed as if from the head of Zeus - can be innocently created. Until that is shown to me though... Jbh ^Talk 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jbhunley. They were already warned in June 2017, December 2017 and January 2018, yet here we are again. We are way beyond assuming good faith. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• 'Support' but prefer user ban indefinitely- I am the one who initial report Rickyc123 on this ANI . I would go further no only he should NOT have the right to create any article he should NOT have the right to redirect as well. He has recreated hundred of NOT notable subjects creation and immediately redirect to a general related page. His doing so is to wait until other editor create the article when the subject is notable and his name would appear in the article name as the creator. See here Redirects to List of current UFC fighters. I have gone thought all Rckyc123's contribution, talkpage, creation, other editors talk page who communicated with him which took me a few days with hours spent and with the evidence that he has been told by other editors of what he has done and been warned a few time and still doing the same actions. It is self evident he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute but to take advantage of other editors work and make it his own and even User:Bennv3771 asked him to take down those article which he stoled from him from his user page, he has still not doing so. His actions deter and discourage other editors to create notable articles and shy from contribution to Wikipedia for Rickyc123 just want to decorate his user page with created article whether his own or not. I would go further what what the ban suggested here to ban indefinately as it is clearly gaming the system just like shockpuppet in a different way- it is "plagiarism" which he has done so many times even with warnings for he has not respected of Wikipedia policies. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should be past this point. His claim that he didn't copy anything is quite obviously a lie. I actually can't even believe that we're humoring claims from a serial plagiarist that it's just a coincidence that his content is identical to the draft version. I literally just gave him a strong warning that he would be blocked if he did it again, and he maliciously and subversively ignored the warning and then played dumb when called out on it. I don't even know why we're hashing this out in yet another long thread when everyone agrees what the problem is. This is a disruptive editor who's already pushed the limit to the very threshold of an indef block, and then crossed it. I totally disagree with leaving them unblocked and discussing moderate sanctions. JBH has aptly explained just how toxic and cancerous this behavior is to the project from a social perspective, and I'll add onto that by pointing out that this is also a copyright issue. Wikipedia is free content to share and remix—under the condition that attribution is provided to the authors. In general, the page history satisfies this requirement. But when you copy within Wikipedia, you need to attribute the copied text to the original contributors (usually by linking to the original page). As the policy points out, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Does anyone here have a reason this user should not be indeffed? Swarm ♠ 00:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef for serial plagiarism and copyright violation. Jbh ^Talk 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef for persistent copyright violations despite several warnings. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2018 (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.

Wikiedebs and North Korea

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:Wikiedebs is on a one-user mission to remove negative information about North Korea from Wikipedia. This mainly takes the form of blatant deletions, e.g. [213] [214] [215] [216]. They constantly lie in edit summaries and incorrectly mark them as minor, e.g. [217] [218]. Their strategy is to make an innocuous edit towards the top of a page to disguise content removals below [219]. More recently they have resorted to childishly bombarding articles with "citation needed" tags. [220] [221] And finally just plain and simple edit-warring [222] [223]. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of blanking. And this response isn't really what I'd be looking for as an explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not all of the inclusions are what I'd characterise as "propaganda", but the seeming focus on replacing references to "North Korea" with "DPRK" is definitely in line with North Korean propaganda practice. The marking of major revisions as "minor" is quite problematic, and if nothing else a warning is justified for that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Wikiedebs has continued edit-warring after I opened this thread. [224] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They haven't really, User:Ivar the Boneful. I do agree this is major disruption, and has been going on for far too long, so thank you for reporting it. At the same time, it's a little misleading to say they have continued edit-warring. After they saw and acknowledged your ANI alert (admittedly in a silly way, as the Ninja points out), they have on the contrary self-reverted some of their edit warring. They may not realize it would be a good idea to respond here as well, and I have now urged them to. (P.S., a minor point: their editing also seems careless, going by the sampling I've done; they change what was grammatically correct phrasing to introduce errors ("the south had declaring statehood", "he authorize war"). Bishonen | talk 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that is true, I have "self-reverted" some of my previous "edit warrings." Based on your advice elsewhere, I am responding here. Perhaps my editing is somewhat careless. I would agree that "not all of the inclusions are..."propaganda"." I did try to change some of the instances of North Korea to DPRK on certain pages, but with Ivar the Boneful's reversals of my edits on those pages, I gave up in that realm. The same goes for the edits to the Kim Il Sung page. As much as I may disagree with parts of it personally, as my edits show, the fact they can be reversed makes such edits a waste of time. I will try to make sure "major revisions" are not marked as "minor" anymore. I was planning to, maybe soon, work on trying to add more to these stubs of pages, or something else entirely. The warning has been served and that's it.Wikiedebs (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (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:GizzyCatBella, general problems, possible POV

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.

---

Afformentioned longtime Wikipedia user has been frequenting the pages pertaining to Poland's relationship with the Holocaust, especially the following article. I made valid edits to, also adding sources to, Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II, of which most of the edits have been removed or changed. User then posted to my talk page a post accusing me of POV-pushing. I deleted the post and warned the user to assume good faith in other editors, and I don't think it worked. I tried to stay away from most of the articles this user is editing, and when I gave my civil thoughts on the talk page for Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II as to why a study from a Polish Historian should be mentioned, and trying to rebut the user's beleif that the material shouldn't be included at all, User responded with a very uncivil message, which was a personal attack on my intelligence:[225]

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

I believe per that comment that the user is engaged in using original research coupled with their strong personal expierience and view to edit these articles with an agenda; pushing a POV that does not jive with the mission of Wikipedia. I feel that the user should be sternly warned, or possibly sanctioned from editing the subject completely, or perhaps the user should be given a short block of 1 day up to a few days.

A few other issues I have noticed is general unwillingness to work with others per WP:CONSENSUS. Here, the user refuses to work with another on image sizes: [226]

Other issues include a general lack of knowledge about how to edit wikipedia, which is hardly a crime, but I feel should be at least noted.:[227],[228]

Addendum: The user also seems to not be aware of how to place comments properly[229] and has had this brought up before: [230]

R9tgokunks ✡ 01:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Two people who are pleasant enough on their own but just can't get along together because they push each other's buttons. R9tgokunks quotes daily papers like a credible source in heated debates. This is not good. Real historians have real names, real education, and real reputation to defend. Haretz doesn't because it is a company, not a scientist, similar to CBC. — Quoting dailies is like saying: "it's on the Internet, so it must be true." If you are willing to negotiate, than compromise. And please try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Speculations are not "rigorous studies".[231] Poeticbent talk 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs), you're not understanding the issue of this incident report. I haven't often had disagreements with the user, and to seemingly insinuate that I have, is misleading. I have only had 1 other major disagreement with them until they personally insulted my intelligence.(the first being the message left on my talk page accusing me of POV-pushing, blatantly breaking WP:AGF) I haven't really participated in editing anymore after they started changing everything that I added, but that is besides the point here. My major issue aside from the other problems is the rude and uncivil tone and the personal attack, which was totally unwarranted. It seems like you're trying to defend that. R9tgokunks ✡ 05:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent, you write that "Quoting dailies is like saying: 'it's on the Internet, so it must be true'." Quite interesting. Has there been a recent project-wide consensus that concluded that all daily newspapers are no longer considered reliable? If so, please point me to that discussion. Otherwise, please evaluate the reliability of sources with a much finer sense of discrimination. It is a well-known historical fact that some (but not all) Christian Poles collaborated in and participated in the mass murder of the Polish Jews in the early 1940s, and it is fruitless to try to deny that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good day, all. Since this grievance has been filed against me I believe that I need to present my view on the issue. Before I do that, however, I would like to apologize to User:R9tgokunks if he felt offended by my comment. Insulting him was never my intention, but if he weighs my remarks being rude, then again, I'm sorry. Now, my opinion about the reason this complaint has been filed. User:R9tgokunks has been involved in the content dispute with me and other editors. Discussion resulted in disputed article alterations that are not to User:R9tgokunks liking. I view this complaint as nothing else than an attempted to restrict my editing capacity. I believe this is the case because his complaint is actuality based only on one possibly uncivil comment. Everything else is not valid. His accusations of my alleged unwillingness to work with others are not true. He chose to display only the beginning of my conversation with User:Beyond My Ken, the whole discussion is here.(Scroll to the very bottom - section Image Sizes) As you can see I was more than willing to work with User:Beyond My Ken. Now, requesting sanctions because my alleged lack of editing experience?(!?!) I’m not aware of any inexperienced editor being sanctioned for being inexperienced. Please notice user User:R9tgokunks has the history of filing misleading complaints He recently receiving a warning from User:Robert McClenon for doing that. He was also recently warned for false vandalism accusation by the very same User:Beyond My Ken he dishonestly claimed I declined to work with. I have no time at the moment to dig any further but there may be more considering User:R9tgokunks 12-year long Wikipedia life. If the evaluating administrator grants me permission, I’ll file a counter-complaint against User:R9tgokunks based on the fact that once again, he filed a complaint based on misleading facts (other than the rude comment of mine of course) in order to get an upper hand in a content dispute. Thank you for your time and attention. Cheers GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs) That's a misleading comment. They brought that reference and others (including notable research institutions) in the talk page, in order to establish the notability of a "real historian". That's more than acceptable. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Jedwabne pogrom, please note that not even once was (is) a daily paper used in our Wikipedia entry about that (and for a good reason). Jedwabne happened in 1941, not in 1940, in the presence of the Nazi German gendarmerie during Operation Barbarossa. The facts established through research is exactly why we do not use dailies in our coverage of major World War II historical events. We use peer-reviewed, academically supported content. Poeticbent talk 14:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Since my name came up in the discussion, I'll say that my interaction with GCB began somewhat acrimoniously (on my part), but ended amicably, and GCB seemed amenable to suggestions and corrections. I also interacted with the OP, R9tgokunks, who inappropriately accused me of vandalism (something their contribution history shows they do often, and almost never appropriately). I have not interacted with either since (with the exception that GCB left a notice on my talk page to inform me that she had mentioned my name here) and in looking through both their edits I have no comment on the quality of their contributions, but I think a very firm warning would be in order to R9tgokunks to not accuse other editors of vandalism simply because they disagree with their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to say that GizzyCatBella has been trying to stem the tide of recent edits on the page, which where very disruptive to Poland section. Example, François Robere has been all over the page in recent days adding 'Dubious' tags to sourced statements and removing text under the pretext that he's just trying to merge statements. Challenging these questionable edits is not POV pushing, especially that no proper discussion on the talk page took place. Everyone should just take a step back for a moment that's all. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by François Robere

• The article in question deals with the sensitive subject of Polish complicity in the Holocaust (not in any particular site, but in the overall chain of events), something which is widely denied in Poland, and widely accepted everywhere else. Before I made my original changes the article was very much reflective of this stance, giving the simplistic impression that Poles never collaborated; those who did collaborate did so under duress; many of the Poles were heroes, including those who collaborated; and some Jews collaborated, inflicting grievous harm to their chances of survival. This was the state of affairs in the beginning.
• User:GizzyCatBella was polite enough towards me, but their position is decisively pro-Polish and reflective of current thinking there. They also seem to emphasize the nationality of both sources and editors, ie who's Polish, American, Israeli or Jewish, as if it bears any relevance to their accuracy of reporting. I have tried to accommodate their opinion by rephrasing certain statements repeatedly, but it seems they object not only to the mention of complicity, but to mentioning that complicity is denied. ie they're denying that any complicity is actually denied. Add to that - the sources that they've provided thus far were sub-par (eg. two poorly-received, narrowly-scoped 2003 books that were given as refutation to a well-known 2013 one; these are the books I tagged and asked for clarifications about), and on occasion they refused to engage on core matters. You may see their positions from this section onwards, and later from this section onwards.
• User:E-960 made several claims against me, but refused to engage on any of the matters in the talk page (following two sections here).
• User:Poeticbent Blanked the whole section twice for no good reason ([232][233]), and (presumably) stopped after I warned them on their talk page against vandalizing the page.

François Robere (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, please see my comments on the talk page, I clearly addressed you edits several times, you are just not accepting that fact. If your edits get reverted then discuss and build consensus. Instead I see that a pretext was made to try and get the Admins involved, bceause 3 editors object to what you were doing. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between making a claim and proving it. You did the former.

I did not suggest involving the admins, nor did I claimed there was any reason to.

As for editor counts - by my count at least three editors also support my changes. Do you really want to go this route? François Robere (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please... anyone can go to the talk page as check for themselves what I said and you said. --E-960 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@E-960:, i mean just look at this comment. It's not impartial at all. It's practically an admittance that the user is editing from a certain POV, which is not tolerated here.

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

R9tgokunks ✡ 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Poeticbent

• François Robere (talk · contribs) has a chip on his shoulder, and he's not afraid of lying through his teeth about the intentions of others if it suits his purpose.[234] Interested mostly in astrology (top edits:43/166),[235] and certainly not in the German-occupied Poland, he rediscovered the "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" article on 2018-01-28 as the perfect dumping ground for the Israeli outrage over the Polish Holocaust bill. The mud-slinging from daily papers soon followed. – How many Poles have been involved in saving Jews? According to world wide web: that's 6,700 times two (or 6,700 x 2 = 13, 400). Everything else is "a blunt lie" opines the 92-year-old Bauer (Haaretz.com - עם של חסידי אומות עולם).[236] We are made to believe that even the minuscule number of 60,000 rescuers mentioned by him is "a blunt lie." – Where's the book reference for that 60,000 I ask? No reference is quoted in Haaretz.com for anything including the 60,000. Please compare this preposterous claim with the one million helpers estimated by Hans G. Furth ("One million Polish rescuers of hunted Jews?" Journal of Genocide Research, June 1999, Vol. 1 Issue 2, pp. 227–232; AN 6025705) or, the three million estimated by Lukas (Out of the Inferno. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-1692-1, The forgotten Holocaust. Hippocrene Books. ISBN 978-0-7818-0901-6). — We do have highly respected books to go by, and we (as Wikipedians) also have policy guidelines to deal with WP:REDFLAGS. We also have long-standing Wikipedia policies against partisan editing based on hostile and hurtful WP:CHERRYPICKING. So, what gives? Poeticbent talk 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent Are you alright? François Robere (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea that R9tgokunks has the nerve to accuse others of POV-pushing is laughable. In recent weeks he has relentlessly pushed the Israeli government's POV, over-emphasizing its viewpoint, quoting it excessively in the text, lead sections, and footnotes of Wikipedia articles. I understand that Netanyahu has to distract the public from the scandals surrounding him and his family, and it was very nice of the moronic Polish governing party to give him fodder, but Wikipedia still pretends to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 19 February 2018 (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:Goodone121

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.

---

Here's the timeline:

1. Started with me reverting a misleading edit to Alternative for Germany here that removed a whole chunk of sourced information but did not indicate they were doing so.

2. I readded the content, and then out of nowhere User:Goodone121, a user I have had no previous interaction with, reverts my attempt to re-add the content and claims I am trying to take WP:Ownership of the article. The edit by the other user was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek.

3. The user goes so far as to post an unwarranted WP:OWN warning on my talk page: [237]

3. Not knowing what to do, I posted a warning on their talk per WP:AGF , and upon seeing they've been warned about it before, I escalated it automatically to the second level, which I assumed was reasonable, as they have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have a history of disruptive behavior, leading up to being indefinitely blocked for a time.

4. User posts on my talk page this misused warning which says that I didn't assume good faith for posting the wrong level of warning template on his page.

I feel at this point I'm being harassed, and I didn't want this to continue so I came here. Based on the history this user has I'd say this needs more than a warning. The user is confronational for no reason. The user has been warned at least 20 times about inapproprate or disruptive behavior:here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; and has been blocked numerous times: first time by Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), second time by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) for indefinite, unblocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs), blocked by B (talk · contribs) for 31 hours, and blocked again by Protonk (talk · contribs) for a month.

As mentioned before, the user was blocked indefinitely at one point in 2010, and the user was also unwilling for a while to commit to editing and behaving properly, as shown the links above. The block was eventually lifted, only for the user to be blocked again 2 more times for similar behavior. Based on this block history of this user and the blatant harassment I am facing, I feel that they should be again blocked.

R9tgokunks ✡ 05:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like I should defend myself...I was not the only one reverting R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)' edits, on Alternative for Germany, as seen [here]. He has been warned repeatedly to "take it to the talk page" (his challenged edits)...although, once Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) reverted, I took it as the end of discussion. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry...ArglebargleIV (talk · contribs) incorrectly used the "minor edit" checkbox for an edit one can see from its pagesize change alone is nonminor...as I have my watchlist set to ignore declared minor edits, it seemed like they were reverting R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)' edit, when they were reverting their own. Again, sorry. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Above statement is misleading in two ways.

1.Other reversions to my edits were done mainly by only 3 users, 2 of which had removed content or added controversial edits(User:Helper201 and User:Underneaththesun). In the instance of the 3rd, User:Melencron, the user and I both had a miscommunication about editing, with him removing some good edits I made by mistake, and those edits were taken to the talk page when gotten too far out of hand. I used WP:COMMONSENSE in those instances, and I also have worked with WP:CONSENSUS.

2.User:Goodone121 claims to have "taken it as end of discussion," yet he continued to harass me. R9tgokunks ✡ 07:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this an apology? R9tgokunks ✡ 07:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is an apology...I misread your posting history. I didn't mean to harass, but I now see how I can be overzealous in enforcing the rules. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks

The OP, R9tgokunks, has now filed two AN/I reports (this current one and this one, an AN report [238], and opened a Dispute Resolution case [239], all within the last week. He has a propensity for claiming that the edits of those who disagree with him are "vandalism", for which he was chastised by Robert McClenon [240]. A number of editors have rebuked him for failing to AGF.

All of this leads me to believe that R9tgokunks has a problem with having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and is using noticeboards and other Wikipedia dispute resolution paths as a weapon in his content disputes with other editors. I think that this editor's behavior needs to be looked at very closely, and, if warranted, they should be sternly warned by an admin that if they don't stop what they are doing, they are heading towards being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Because this is a sub-section of a report he started, I don't believe I'm technically required to notify R9tgokunks of this (because the behavior of all parties is almost always examined in AN/I reports), but in an abundance of caution, I have done so anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, I have changed the title of the main section as it was an attempt to poison the well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Above comments are a bit misleading. I ended the dispute resolution post almost as soon as I started it, and I left the editing to other people. Also, reporting that I have done is hardly WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially when I am being harassed, as in this instance; and personally attacked, as in the instance of GizzyCatBella, who blatantly insulted my intelligence(after I had already told them about WP:AGF for claiming I was POV-pushing) by saying this:

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

Also, though you renamed the title of this report, you left "The actual issue: The behavior of User:R9tgokunks" up. Hardly helpful per your reasoning. I've renamed that as well.R9tgokunks ✡ 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if you think "The actual issue: The behavior of User:R9tgokunks" is as problematic as "Harassment from User:Goodone121, a user with history of incivility / edit-warring; blocks", you're welcome to think that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is in no way misleading. You opened all those reports, all within a week, and it looks verymuch like you're using them as a hammer to inhibit the editors who you are in dispute with. And one remark from one editor can't possible justify behavior from you that started and largely took place before the remark was made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that your continued following of my edits feels like harassment. You definetly aren't adhering to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've only had one disagreement with you, to which I halted editing. In addition, per your extensive and recent block history, I don't feel your comments are just or correct. R9tgokunks ✡ 07:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to throw words around without actually knowing what they mean. Please read WP:VANDALISM to understand what that word means on Wikipedia, and read WP:HARASSMENT to learn the Wikipedia definition of that. "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And my block log, and my most recent block over a year ago, are relevant to this discussion ... why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It definetely is misleading. My reports are just, based on personal attacks, and/ or harassment that I felt I could not deal with myself. What is the Administrators Noticeboard here for, if not to report those things? Also, like I said, I closed the Dispute Resolution report very soon after.

Also, the above behavior was definetely harassment. I had done nothing to the user and he singled me out by reverting my valid edit and then misusing warning templates on my talk page. Thats textbook.

Also, It seems other admins or users take a persons block history into account when dealing with them. I thought it was obvious. R9tgokunks ✡ 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You think many things about Wikipedia, but – despite your 12 years and almost 14,000 edits – they turn out not to be the case, such as your misunderstanding of what "vandalism" and "harassment" mean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Beyond My Kens evaluation.User:R9tgokunks has a tale of troublesome behavior therefore I agree that his apparent misuse of this board among other things should be closely examined.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2018 (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.

Sock?

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.

---

Kalabanda a few minutes ago posted here saying "Some one filed a complaint at talk page of Wikipedia. Some admin advised me that wikipeida talk page is not right place to file complaint , transfer the complain to ANI.. how can i transfer ?"[241] however they've only edited their TP, UP and then here which would indicate no one's advised them on anything?,
Not sure if they're a sock, troll or simply a very lost editor, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GAB!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:49, 20 February 2018 (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:Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Apart from being generally rude and abrasive, the user shows a consistent pattern of being insulting, committing ad hominems, and showcasing a clear lack of neutrality on a variety of controversial topics that require tact more than any. If someone is unable to show tact, stay cool and level-headed, and hold a neutral position on any topic - but particularly contentious ones, that is concerning. In my humble opinion, the user has shown flagrant bias and a rather inappropriate attitude. [242] [243] [244] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontonianOnlines (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oy vey. I don't see any of the mentioned behavior. This is severe reaching. R9tgokunks ✡ 06:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TorontonianOnlines. BMK wrote: "Bullshit. Antisemitic garbage and Fascist and neo-Nazi propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, and will be deleted wherever it's found." BMK was entirely correct that such propaganda (as opposed to neutral, well-referenced descriptions of it) should be deleted. If you disagree with BMK on this matter, perhaps you should rethink your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicely put. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't mean we give equal weight to Nazis and non-Nazis. It's not being insulting, committing ad hominems, and showcasing a clear lack of neutrality for Beyond My Ken to point this out. ‑ Iridescent 07:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of the stuff the OP is pushing reminds me of the ref desk Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

TorontonianOnlines, do you realize how many otherwise productive editing hours had been wasted because of the misuse of this board? I took a glimpse at your complaint and I think you are really oversensitive. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• An account with 12 edits this year, mainly concerning Stormfront and a racist author, with previous edits to Identity Evropa. I wonder why this user would be unduly sensitive about criticism of Nazi apologia? Guy (Help!) 09:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• What I see is an editor standing up to ensure that a virulently-racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi trash fire of a website is properly portrayed as what it is. Barnstars are merited here, not ANI threads. Close this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2018 (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.

Request for edit history deletion

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

---

Hi, an IP has added a request for money to be sent to an account, obviously an abuse of Wikipedia, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cork_(material)&diff=826646187&oldid=826230178. I've deleted it but I think it should be deleted also from the edit history. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2018 (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.

Edit warring by BrownHairedGirl

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.

---

@BrownHairedGirl: made over 30 reverts of non-controversial category cleanup edits such as [245] removing parent i.e. Category:cheeses by country when target Category:English cheeses is already in a subcategory ie. Category:British cheeses.

I am far from alone in making such edits see [246] , [247], [248] all by different editors

As a long standing admin, BrownHairedGirl who is a regular at CFD should follow the categorisation guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization. BrownHairedGirl should consider self reverting these edits. Failing to do so they should refraining from closing CFD nominations and if this is repeated should have admin flag removed. Tim! (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tim!: When you went to BHG's user talk page, and attempted to start a civil discussion with her to see what she had to say, what were the results of that discussion? --Jayron32 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we can see from the tone of the edit here [249] that would be unlikely to be fruitful. Tim! (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing there that indicates that the discussion wouldn't be fruitful; it looks that you've come to ANI prematurely; this is not the first place you come during a content dispute, this is the last place you come, after you have exhausted all other avenues. --Jayron32 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ANI isn't your private army; if you're not even willing to discuss the issue with BHG but just insist that we do things your way because you're So Damn Important, there's only one person here acting in a manner unbecoming an admin and it's not her. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with BHG regarding the categorization, but I don't see how that's edit warring. She took one issue and made the same change on several pages. These resulted in a single change over multiple pages, but there had been no discussion resulting in consensus that she was over-riding, nor do I see that she has she undone a revert of her edit, not even once. This shouldn't be at ANI. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a WP:BRD issue. Tim made a series of WP:BOLD edits which I reverted. Next step is to discuss.

Tim knows well that this his edits were controversial, per the discussion at User talk:Mais_oui!#Supercats. I commented[250] there, pinging Tim, but he made no reply to my comment or those of @Mais oui! other than to announce[251] h31 hours later that he was going to ANI.

Tim's ANI notification[252] on my talk was posted not at the bottom of the page, but in a discussion section where I had suggested[253] an RFC. Tim could hardly have missed that suggestion.

So I am bemused by all this. Tim

1. ignores a ping
2. refuses discussion in 2 places
3. ignores a suggestion of RFC

... and then accuses me of being an unfit admin. Bizarre.

I don't recall having an difficulties with Tim before, so I dunno what provoked such hostility in him that he chose to go a bit WP:SPIDERMAN.

If @Tim! has some philosophical objection to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, then he should be reconsidering his own adminship. But I'd much prefer that he worked with me to set up the RFC. Please will you do that, Tim ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 19 February 2018 (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:SAm32445

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 I get an indef block of this account, who altered one of my comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler to make it appear that I thought Hitler was a "good guy". [254]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (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.

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

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.

---

Moved to WP:AN

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 10:26, 19 February 2018 (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.

ClueBot

He deleted my new page about Julius Freed. Julius Freed was one of the two guys who founded Orange Julius and I was upset when there was not a page about him yesterday so I made one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.138.24.174 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Freed is a redirect to Orange Julius which has not been changed since 2010 and is protected. ClueBot doesn't delete pages. Perhaps you mean that ClueBot prevented you from editing this page, which is correct based on the protection. General Ization ^Talk 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: IP says "there was not a page, so I made one" [...] "Clubot deleted my new page". I wonder if he is trolling. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at List of Death in Paradise episodes

Persistent disruptive editing - after they have been blocked twice - by user Kaos Edward Nick (talk · contribs). They probably contributed as IP user 24.65.54.59 (talk · contribs) during the time the registered username was blocked. --Richard-DIP (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits made yesterday by Kaos Edward Nick here just look to be simple table color changes and the creation of a column - these don't look disruptive to me at all. What's the user been doing that's been disruptive? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits for which they were blocked were unsourced speculation about shows and casts in 2020 - they haven't repeated that as far as I can see since the last block, although they're starting to push the boundary on some topics. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

They added unsourced speculative air dates for season 8 (diff), removed the "References" section header and reflist tag (diff), added a speculative synopsis (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff), added a speculative announcement (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff) --Richard-DIP (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard's username, Richard-DIP, and his contributions hint at WP:OWNership issues. There may be enough trout to share in this report. Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stewardship is not the same thing as ownership. If you have some specific diffs of WP:OWN violations, please present them, otherwise it is casting aspersions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on block

Please see the second AIV report here. Contribs can be seen here. Any objections to the block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty damn high-level rangeblock; you've essentially blocked an entire chunk of a cell-phone carrier's users from accessing Wikipedia for the sake of shutting down two trolls that happen to use that service. I'm not saying I oppose, and I'm not saying I support, I'm just saying... --Jayron32 14:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I looked at about 50 contribs from the past month and about 10% were decent (nothing particularly good). The other 90% were vandalism, disruption, or people playing around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, blocking wide ranges like this can naturally look scary, but the edits from this range are almost entirely disruptive and the risk for collateral damage is very low. Situations like these are what make the block of a range (even wide ones) necessary. Do I like doing it? Of course not. Do I try my best to avoid doing it if other solutions exist? Of course. But sometimes this is what's needed, too... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me - go for it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block IMO, though a tough call. Thanks for bringing it for discussion. It's a large range, yes, but that shouldn't stop us from preventing disruption. It's anon-only so anyone with an account on that range should still be able to edit (right?) but should you have blocked account creation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to criticize, I was actually wondering if that was a thing that we should do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would really like to see it reduced to a week. I'm not seeing any major disruption, just run of the mill vandalism, and I don't feel comfortable with a month long range block that wide of a mobile carrier for what is likely high school kids messing around. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Go through the contribs for a couple months. If you feel a week long block will stem all that disruption then feel free to reduce. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• The range has been used by an LTA (filing cases against checkusers) and another sockmaster. There isn't much collateral damage for anon editing. Two regular users use the range and they would be collateral if this were a hardblock. Blocking account creation isn't necessarily a bad thing here. Longer block likely to be more effective than naught.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given the CU data above, I have no objections now. I was just looking at the high school type stuff that could be seen publicly, and didn't see any attempts for shorter blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Something worth watching is the /41 range because the CU logs show that as a range of concern. The Whois record shows a /44 but three different CUs have checked the /41.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the /44 block doesn't stop everything and a /41 would, it can be easily extended if the need presents itself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

After continuing to keep watch over the contributions from both the /44 and the /41 ranges, I think that blocking at the /44 should be sufficient. I don't see any disruption from IPs that are outside of the /44 but within the /41. I also see what appear to be good faith edits from within that /44 - /41 range pool as well, so we should avoid blocking at this range unless we have no other choice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've been through a few and they also seem to be wireless broadband in small geographical area. Blocks like this may unfortunately be necessary to stop LTA, as LTA users will probably be given a new IP address every time they log on: blocking single IPs or even /64 connections are liable to be next to useless. The only alternative is to these sort of blocks is semi-protecting all articles affected, but if a lot of different articles are affected then that falls down too. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

IP keeps adding personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI

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, the IP 12.130.116.88 keeps adds personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI. Despite being reverted many times, the user keeps readding info back. See [ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]. This might require revdel. Stylez995 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue has been handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Stylez995 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem; it's what I'm here for ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 17 February 2018 (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.

Fabrication from ShaneFilaner

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

---

This user is known for (not always but quite often) making problematic sales changes to articles and as noted at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#More deception from ShaneFilaner and the thread before it WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. See those for more detail. In short, he's a deceptive user who tries to inflate sales and/or insert thinly veiled fancruft in general. His latest form of disruption since his latest block is fabricating charts that don't actually exist (and "World Music Awards" is a questionable source anyway). The guy has no excuse, and I've told him before that it gets noticed when he tries to deceive others. He obviously doesn't care and I don't see how anything less than an indefinite block will teach him to cut it out at this point. If he isn't blocked indefinitely this time (see this for past blocks), then please at the very least block him for a month. It's really aggravating to see him continue his poor conduct. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging admins Acalamari and JzG who have previously blocked him for disruption. Someone really needs to put a stop to his antics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have indefinitely blocked ShaneFilaner. No change in behavior. Acalamari 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for that! He's basically been asking for it and this was long overdue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 17 February 2018 (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.

Darkness Shines: edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks at Cambodian genocide

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.

---

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) has really gone overboard in the last day or so. I don't even remember what the content of my edits was that got caught in his back-to-2015 (!) mass-revert, so I consider myself basically neutral on the content. But edit summaries like "As before, and this section is bollocks", "fuck me, ever more shite", "Who the fuck cites Rummel", "Shite sources and off topuc bollocks" and "How about, your a prick, how about an article in a fucking genocide is, I dunno focused on that, how about fuck off." are clearly way out of line, and some of the others (like this) are completely incoherent. These edit summaries appear to be in violation of his 2015 unblock conditions here (particularly point 3).

He also broke 3RR by reverting four times in just over two hours.[255][256][257][258] (It may also run afoul of 1RR, since his block log mentions it but this was never apparently logged at WP:RESTRICT so I can't tell if it was appealed. I apologize if I am mistaken.)

Most disheartening, though, is the fact that according to the log this is coming one month after his last block, two months after he was blocked for "Edit warring, incivility, and badgering other editors", edit-warring a month before that, edit-warring two months before that, and four months before that given WP:ROPE following an indef block appeal.[259]

I honestly don't want this to go where it looks likely to go, since I actually agree that the article before his revert was pretty bad, but this really needs the community's attention.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I know the page was protected per my request at RFPP so the content dispute is "over" as far as that goes. But that was before I noticed his block log and unblock restrictions. If I thought this was a workable content dispute I wouldn't have come to ANI to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment My recommendation at RFPP was to step back, calm down, and recenter. Not surprised to see this post here. The edit summaries were appalling. There is discussion on the article talk, but it appears at an impasse. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. FWIW, if DS logs in and does a complete about-face and follows Dlohcierekim's advice, my above report can probably be considered withdrawn. I do think civility restrictions need strict enforcement the same as every other editing restriction, but I'm also not into wikilawyering over such things. More eyes on the dispute (whatever it is even about at this point; I've lost track) can't but be a good thing, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This attempt at collaboration [260] was met with this response[261]. "I don't care what others think" seems to sum up all the mass reverts and deletions on the page. Hijiri 88 did the right thing bringing this here, and I don't see how/why even an about-face would justify the withdrawing of this report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We are going to continue to be here, every other week, it seems.--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly a one-sided dispute from a single editor who came out of the gates with all barrels firing. Not only has Darkness Shines approached the "discussion" without the slightest hint of good faith, they've made it explicit they don't feel they have to explain themselves. This is despite so many of the reverts being problematic—some disputed (Pol Pot's death described as suicide), some straight up gibberish ("perpetrator guanoator"???). Can anyone give a coherent rationale for action not being taken against this behaviour (which appears to be par for the course given DS's block log). There's seriously no chance this person will begin to engage in GF discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unpleasant Proposal Time

Yuck. Ugh. - This is an even longer block log than for the two principal subject editors currently before the ArbCom. What we have here is an editor whose objective is to improve the encyclopedia, but who is unable, no matter how many times around, to edit collaboratively. It doesn't matter whether we call it not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia or being incompetent at working as part of a team or what. Unfortunately, I can't be optimistic enough to support the usual indefinite block with the understanding that indefinite is not infinite, because history shows that the editor will ask one more time for a standard offer or get tangled up in 20 feet of rope. I think that we have to impose either a site ban or an indefinite block with the condition that only the community can lift the block. If the community doesn't want to do this, then the case will go to the ArbCom, which will probably decline it, and accept it on second filing in the northern summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support an Indefinite Block, to be lifted only by the community, or a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site or community ban. I do not believe DS is here to operate in good faith, and have not believed so for quite some time.--Jorm (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support either an indef with community approval needed to lift, or an outright site ban. The block log and edit summaries indicate a hopeless case. The community needs to make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block with condition - We are here for something DS has said or done every few weeks and it is getting stale repeating the same ol' story. As I said last time, the community did its best but some editors simply do not take a hint. Fair warning: DS discussed creating another account during his last go-around; I would be wary of a scheme to evade scrutiny.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait what? If that is the case I may have to strike my soft oppose below, you got diffs handy? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel syme, in this edit summary, DS made his intentions quite apparent. That was last time, and, considering he has once again placed himself in a similar predicament, I felt it was worth mentioning the possibility of using another account to evade a site ban. Can not say I agree with you calling him "prolific" below when the only thing he is "prolific" for is net-negative contributions and an inability to communicate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - This will be their third indefinite block, so I prefer to impose a community ban at this juncture. They received an indef block in November, 2014 for abusing multiple accounts. This block was lifted in March, 2015 – about five months later. Their second indefinite block came on 27 May, 2015 per an arbitration enforcement of a TBAN. This block was lifted mid-September 2017 – after 2 + 1/3 years, and only 5 months ago. This is a clear and recurring problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN might as well formalize it. The blocks haven't worked, and an "indef with community approval needed" might as well be a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Per above. I don't remember the last time I encountered DS, just that it was unpleasant, and over the years I've seen quite a lot of unpleasantness coming from that account.
  Per TonyBallioni, "indef with community approval needed" either means siteban or is meaningless (since there'd be community approval in a SO situation, or the Committee would just take jurisdiction entirely). As I've said in many discussions recently, we have a problem where AN/ANI try to come up with "gotcha" scenarios to prevent blocks issued today from being lifted in six months. While "with community approval needed" doesn't nearly approach the level of silliness I've seen recently (in one case, I believe an indef, along with an indef topic ban that only kicks in if the block is lifted), I believe we should avoid putting into place novel procedural hurdles geared towards giving indefinite sanctions more permanence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I don't see how a topic ban would work. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. How much evidence does we need to finally decide an editor is not acting in good faith? Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban (reluctantly) <sigh> I'm pretty sure I've had positive interactions with DS at some point in the past, and I personally really hate seeing a content creator get banned because they violated CIVIL, but them's the rules, and unfortunately DS has run afoul of them one too many times at this point, so I really don't see any hope for another final last chance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See also repeated and unambiguous TBAN violations that I didn't notice until now.[262] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Soft oppose I hear all of the above but I've run into conflicts with DS before, and while I agree they can often be difficult to deal with, I would hate to lose such an editor who is prolific on such important topics as they generally edit. That being said perhaps sanctions are in order, I'm new at this. I definitely get the exhaustion of the community with 'one last chance'. Gabriel syme (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban; per rnndude and jusdafax. We shouldn't tolerate such behaviour, even if the editor does contribute. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban, obviously. This should have been done years ago. And let's not pretend this is some kind of valuable content contributor whose only issue is a foul temper. The core problem about DS has always been that his content contributions are uniformly bad, and that he lacks the competence to engage in any meaningful discussion about them. He's always been a net negative to the project. After how many (two? three?) indef blocks, dozens of blocks for edit-warring, at least three topic bans, and uncounted "civility restrictions" and "revert paroles" (all of which were broken), it's time to close the door for good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban per above. We should not tolerate this kind of behaviour. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. His block log is a mile long, the C.W.Gilmore feud was ridiculous, and when DS finally edits somewhere outside of American politics, his behavior is somehow worse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose a "standard offer" compatable ban; aka an indef block with appeal to WP:AN after 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I tried to do this in early January, but did it while he was blocked and mucked it up real time. But yes, block log longer than the A1, and as Jorm said above, we'll be here every week if DS gets involved in some sort of content dispute. He has self-stated his lack of patience for others. !dave 08:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- this editor has clearly become unmanageable. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per my earlier observation that "I don't care what others think" shows a mentality that is fundamentally opposed to collaboration. Add into that the constant feuding at ANI, the nature of the edits, the 1001 second chances, and it feels like yet another example of too much past patience. Grandpallama (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The genocide Talk page discussion was really something -- but not surprising. I've observed the same at another page, which lead to several ANI threads, one of which I started myself: NPA, unblock conditions. Coming from an indef block, this latest development, plus many others, demonstrate a surprising lack of a learning curve. The user's contributions, unfortunately, have not been a net positive to the project, and a site ban is an appropriate remedy in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a problem, and there is a history of problems but there is also a history of worthwhile content in the past. I might consider an indef block, but a cban seems to be WP:POINTy. A ban does virtually nothing that an indef block doesn't do and there isn't any convincing argument presented that says an indef block is insufficient and only a ban will do. The behavior is inexcusable, I agree, which is wny an indef block is needed. We often rush to ban something thinking that is going to do more than a block will do. It won't. A community indef block can only be overturned by the community, not a single admin, so that is the right path. A ban is simply overkill as (again) no evidence is presented to show a ban will be more effective than a community indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm not actually that familiar with DS's history beyond a scan of his block log and a (brief) search for any relevant sanctions or unblock conditions he miht already be subject to, but wouldn't the two previous indef blocks that were repealed be evidence that enough ROPE has been given in this case? Were the previous appeals brought to the community with consensus to unblock or something? In the past I've been indeffed, and unblocked based on an off-wiki appeal to a debateably "involved" admin, and I don't think I should be site-banned because my previous indef block wasn't enough, so I'm definitely open to the idea. I don't think "community indef block" is a thing (I vaguely recall something like that being brought up at the village pump a few months ago), or how it would be different from a site-ban if it were.

On a related point, the original proposal was for either a site-ban or an indef block, so wouldn't your !vote technically be to oppose the former but rather support the latter?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course the community can impose an indef block, and no single admin may reverse it, only a community decision can. This is common. And I have faith whoever closes this can sort it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Are you sure? A bunch of the "support" !votes before the initial close amounted to "An indefinite block that must be appealed to the community is the same as a site ban", and in my experience this is pretty consistent with standard practice. I found the "village pump" discussion anyway, which was actually two related discussions here and here; the resulting change to the policy wording stated that unblocks should not be made unilaterally when the block was the implementation of "a community sanction", but did not clarify that "indefinite blocks" that are the result of community consensus (as opposed to explicitly worded "bans") are meant to be treated as implementation of a community sanction, as such. User:Jytdog also gave a helpful list of relevant examples of blocks that had been community-imposed but were not necessarily treated as community sanctions for unblock purposes; Jytdog did go on close that discussion, apparently satisfied that the relevant changes had been made, but several of the other "oppose" !votes further down this thread clearly see "a standard block, appealable in the normal way" as being different from what is being proposed, and several of the "support" !votes are saying that there is no difference between a "community block" and a site ban. I honestly don't mind that much, and if a community block is what you say it is (maybe I am just misinterpreting the fine print on the policy changes last May, and the other commenters are just unaware of the still-fairly-recent changes) then I really couldn't care less what wording we use. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure and familiar with the distinction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban. I'm one of the many people Darkness Shines has verbally abused. No, this behaviour is not okay. In a workplace, he would have been fired a long time ago, and a volunteer project should have higher standards for behaviour than a workplace because people don't get paid to stick around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support a ban, for all the reasons above. Sadly, DS is simply not able to get along. But yes, let's let this run its course, in fairness to someone who has, after all, put in non-trivial work. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I won't have time to formulate anything properly but I do ask the closer to consider ignoring FPaS and (for a different reason) anyone associated with the gender bias stuff - Jorm, Gamaliel, Peter the Fourth etc. I've no idea what the problem is between FPaS and DS but it has gone on for a while. As for the rest, there is a significant history of pile-on enmity etc with those people and I've had enough of it and the walled garden they are protecting. They are among the most incivil people I have come across, despite probably never writing "one of those words". DS speaks his mind and, without doubt, has crossed the line at times but this war of attrition by pov-pushing cabals needs to stop and DS has been particularly effective at times in cutting through that. Cool story, bro, as Jorm would say. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Cool story, bro --Jorm (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Does any of your above comment apply to me (the editor who filed this ANI report), User:Robert McClenon (the editor who made the unpleasant proposal in question), or anyone involved in the most recent incident at the Cambodian genocide article? Asking a closer to ignore !votes from users A, B, C, D, "etc." is very unusual, as it looks like you are trying to make the closer jumo through as many hoops as possible before closing it the way virtually everyone says it should. I am pretty sure I have commented on "gender bias stuff" in the past, but I had no idea that could have anything to do with this question; I made some copy-edits to a random article I was reading, and some time later was pinged on the talk page, noticed a massive barrage of cursing in edit summaries, and once I noticed the editor's block log and WP:RESTRICT entry decided to bring it to ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no idea whether the weird exclusions apply to me. I will note that I did think that the discussion was closed very quickly (although I agreed with the result), and will note that I don't care whether it is called an indefinite block by the community or a ban by the community. I will note that I think that editors who want DS given one more chance are more optimistic than I am. I will note that I don't give a damn about the use of dirty words, or, more accurately, I may give only one or two damns about them, but don't think anyone should be blocked, let alone banned, for the mere use of particular words. I will also say that I don't think that there is anything "robust" or "tough" about the use of bad language, because anything that can be said with bad language can be said equally effectively with clean language, unless the objective is to make a point, as I just did above. However, anyone with a block log as long as DS can reasonably be concluded to be a net negative to the encyclopedia. The ArbCom is likely to ban two editors as net negatives who have shorter block logs than DS. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given this finding, I'm thinking that Sitush is among the LAST people who should be doling out advice on how to treat the opinions of his ideological opponents. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as personally I think it's overkill, I do however support a8 2 month block from this place with TP access revoked - DS quite honestly needs to take some time away to seriously think about his attitude here and the way he goes about things ..... DS is here for all the right reasons he just seems to go about things the wrong way (in some ways like myself), Oppose CBAN but Support 8 2 month block. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. But I will support a block of 1-3 months as a last chance wake up call that this behavior will not be tolerated by the community. Improving the encyclopedia comes first, but patience wears thin. Finally a suggestion that discussion for banning a long term contributor should run longer then 11 hours. . Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've since amended my comment as 8 months with TPA revoked is overkill too!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: @Mr Ernie: If DS hadn't (fairly recently) come off an indef block that was in place for two years, I would be inclined to agree with you, but hasn't he been given enough time to cool off already? How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things? As for improving the encyclopedia coming first: hell yes! But that is unfortunately never how Wikipedia has operated. My original longer response to NeilN below included a statement that I wish these weren't foregone conclusions on principle. I hate that WP:CIVIL is essentially the only policy that matters and how civil POV-pushers can deliberately bait content creators into losing their cool, but the content creators have to just have more cool than that. That's always how it has worked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

These are good points. Frankly I’m just not sure the best way forward here. I feel that DS has really made significant improvements to the project, but at some cost to civility. I’m not sure how to quantify which one is more important. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose DS uses one of the harsher sexually derived words more than I think is appropriate, but we generally don’t CBAN people just for swearing. In this diff, he called another editor a “prick” and used a vulgarity to ask them to leave. I don’t see anything harsher the recent edit summaries. Perhaps we should impose a ban on DS using vulgar terms in edit summaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: Yeah, but when enforcement of such a ban is requested (and he will violate it), are you just going to oppose the enforcement request and say a new weak sanction would be better? I opened this report to request enforcement of his existing sanctions (1RR and "You are required to remain civil. As a condition of your unblock, you must acknowledge that any edit which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, contains personal attacks or gross incivility will be met with blocks of escalating length, ending with an indefinite block after the fourth offense."). Yes, he is already banned from using vulgarity in edit summaries, as that second one almost definitely covers it. At least in the context of aggressively telling another editor to "fuck off", calling people names, etc. -- is your proposal to ban him from making self-effacing edit summaries like this, this, this and this? There is nothing wrong with using profanity in edit summaries in contexts like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to a block for disruptive behavior. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am always civil and don't enjoy profanity, but oppose a siteban for an editor with good contributions and intentions, in this case free an article from unsourced content! Compare the civility arb case and let's not measure differently. Better work on said article, all of us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN, on both procedural grounds and per the specific allegations raised against DS in this thread. On procedure, I am too often taken aback with the unwarranted haste that has nearly become the norm with sanctions placed pursuant discussions on this noticeboard, and its parent as well. Such haste mocks the value of community input, accentuating an involved perspective while nearly quashing the unbiased voice that clearly would take a bit longer to informatively opine. Regarding specific allegations, while I can not condone DS's conduct, I do not see it as having risen above conduct ably handled with escalating blocks and with his most recent blocks having escalated to 2 weeks, I think Davey2010's suggestion of 8 months is an excessive escalation; 4 weeks would seem adequate in my opinion. In closing, having said my piece regarding DS, I can not, in good faith, chastise DS for his behavior without cautioning Curly Turkey for provocative commentary in edit summary, seemingly unprovoked, and far more egregious than the examples presented against DS[263]. If civility is a pillar the community has decided to enforce, I am certain that your own incivility could not be excused.--John Cline (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed an 8 month block with TPA revoked is rather excessive so I've since changed to 2 months, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• John Cline: "far more egregious"? One editor was disrupting article space, editwarring, and flat-out attacking literally everyone who tried to engage with him in any way whatsoever. But a guy who said "fuck" in an edit summary in reaction to all this was "far more egregious"? A WP:POINT-y oppose if I've ever seen one.
  DS is drawing fire not for their language, but for their egregious and ceaseless disruptive behaviour. You're saying turn a blind eye because someone said "fuck"? Well, then, you'd better start talking about DS's language---they got in an awful lot of naughty words before I got there, so you'll have to 'splain why you've singled me out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that you (the person) nor the manner of your conduct, was far more egregious. I meant only to compare the incivility in your edit summary with the incivility in the linked examples given against DS. To further clarify, my comparison did not depend on tallying "naughty words" or measuring their fit in a garden variety potty-mouth. My sole rule for discriminating the commentary was in measuring the attack value and personalized nature of the text itself. As such, I concluded that your telling DS to "keep [his] jizzy mitts off the motherfucking article" to be the intentional poking of an already agitated Wikipedian with a high likelihood of eliciting a negative response from DS which could only serve to increase the chances that he would ultimately be banned by the community, the outcome you prefer. If I had not wished to convey a few points in !voting on this ban proposal, I would not have !voted at all. Your insinuation, however, that I disrupted Wikipedia in doing so seems a bit baseless to me while the befuddlement you express in suggesting that I advocate turning a blind eye because of your commentary seems a bit feigned considering I neither said or implied any such thing. As far as my singling your edit summary out from the others, I frankly did not see another example where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black.--John Cline (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  John Cline: "poking of an already agitated Wikipedian": If you've read the talk page, you know he came out the gates agitated with no provocation, and that numerous editors have been trying to reason with him. Have you examined the evidence before !voting?

  "the outcome you prefer"---how the fuck would you know what outcome I prefere? I haven't !voted.

  "where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black"---this is gibberish. DS has disrupted article space and refuses to engage in discussion about it. There's only one "kettle" here, unless you're suggesting someone else in the discussion has disrupted article space and refused to engage in discussion about it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Dennis, a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary. Per Sitush, I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful. Block DS temporarily, if we determine we must, as a standard block, appealable in the normal way, but this is way too far for an editor who has contributed so much. I'm disappointed with some of the editors of whom I thought better who have jumped on this bandwagon, and I'm sorry I felt the need to say that - but there it is. -- Begoon 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful What "tactics"? Civil POV pushers? Are you talking about me and Robert McClenon? That's pretty funny, given my history. I asked Sitush this same question above, and they have yet to get back to me -- saying you agree with a statement that they have been challenged on and not defended is not the best idea, surely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No Hijiri, I'm not talking about you or Robert. I also don't appreciate being badgered or your "advice" on what's "the best idea", so see my reply below and please don't ping me to this discussion again. Thanks. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think I have fallen out during contributions with User:Darkness shines but imo a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary, he has a degree of content improvement contributions and is not a valueless User, a ban from American politics and any related articles would be a better outcome. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Query - How, again, is it "overkill" to cban an editor who has been indefinitely blocked twice and has a block log longer than a grocery shopping list? Is a lesser block (or, ridiculously, nothing at all) going to magically make DS see the light when all else has failed? Or are we supposed to turn a blind eye to a recurring problem because to some editors DS is a buddy and is excused by occasionally good content?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to !vote, but comment that nobody should be blocked or banned for their language. DS's offenses are strictly disruptive behaviour—editwarring, refusing to engage with any and all comers to the talk page, refusal to explain the reverts, and repeatedly reverting to disputed and even gibberish content. Nothing anyone said on the talk page provoked "Feck off bud, if anything's worth saving, I'll save it" and "Sorry, I don't care what others think". Something needs to be done about this behaviour. Your job, ANI, is to work it the fuck out so that Wikipedia can function, not to hand out paddywhacks to pottymouths. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I can only offer a tentative view based on my occasional running across of DS and his edits, but my impression has always been that he contributes useful content in potentially contentious topic areas. Wikipedia has a massive and largely ignored problem of being unable to effectively combat agenda-driven editing, meaning that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction. I did propose a while back that for editors who are widely viewed as useful contributors but who struggle at times to maintain civility, we should consider suspending the usual escalating block regime and simply impose shortish but substantial blocks, of say a week or so, for infractions, which may well be all that is required to get such editors to modify their behaviour. Having said that, I have the impression judging by some recent comments that DS is fed up and could perhaps use a more prolonged break to get his act together. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. I'd go so far as to say that this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it, or standing by while such users become disillusioned and walk away, is the biggest problem wikipedia has when it comes to maintaining balanced content. -- Begoon 11:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Gatoclass, Begoon: why are you guys talking about his language? Nobody gives two shits about his language—this whole discussion would not have been opened if it were about his language. The issue is his editwarring, restoring broken content, refusal to discuss, WP:OWN, etc. etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Erm, I haven't mentioned his language, so I'm struggling to answer that question. Perhaps my agreeing with Gato who used the term 'civility' is what you mean? I see it as a wider issue. If you read my posts again you'll see that what I have said is that I disagree with a siteban as unnecessary and that I feel good-faith users are often worn down by "civil" POV pushing and then punished when their behaviour deteriorates as a consequence, while the "civil" POV pushers go unscathed. Obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Cheers. -- Begoon 12:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon: What does this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it mean if not a cutting down of all the non-cursing disruption? There are no civil POV pushers in the recent Cambodian genocide case, and DS was not "worn down"; the article talk page hadn't been edited in four months and the article itself was fairly stable until DS instigated that whole mess. Making this into a "good content contributor who was worn down by civil POV pushers" issue dismisses the fact that DS has been explicitly violating sanctions that, if he thought they were unfair or were the result of civil POV pushers deliberately wearing him down and "sail[ing] blithely on, often for years, without sanction" (a description you called "absolutely correct"), he should have appealed them. Seriously, I mentioned in my first comment up above that I wasn't sure if DS had successfully appealed his 1RR restriction, and no one has told me "No, he did; see this diff/permalink." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

But Hijiri, you're cross-examining me as though I have said nothing should be done... I haven't said that, and I'll repeat two things I said to CT above: First, read what I have actually said - I have opposed a site-ban, and said that if we determine a block is necessary it should be a standard block. Second, obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Now I know you could continue this back and forth all day, I've seen it , but I can see the audience's eyes glazing over already, so I'll leave it there. Reasonable people do sometimes differ. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I was responding to the initial post in this thread which was focused on incivility. But regardless, it doesn't change my point that good-faith users disheartened by problematic editing that the community seems powerless to address will sometimes lose patience and begin to respond inappropriately, whether that be through incivility or other breaches of policy. I fully endorse Begoon's view above that agenda-driven editing is the most serious problem facing Wikipedia, and until we find a way to address that effectively, we are going to continue to shed quality editors while the POV-pushers who drive them away continue to thrive. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Begoon, Gatoclass: So, the both of you are convinced this is a case of civil POV-pushing? Could you tell us what POV is supposedly being pushed? Have either of you actually read Talk:Cambodian genocide#Massive revert by Darkness Shines? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I take an issues with the statement that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction, as it suggests that people who voted "support" are non-content contributing "POV pushers", whiners, and complainers. How can you be so sure? Also, eventually is pretty rich in this context, since disruption, frivolous 3RRN threads, and uncivility are the hallmarks of this particular editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Curly Turkey, I am not for a moment trying to suggest that people who !voted support here are "POV-pushers" (though perhaps some of them might be) and indeed I agree that DS's conduct at the article in question, especially some of the comments he made on the talk page, are unacceptable. And I would think that the majority of people who have !voted support here have done so in good faith and with the best of intentions. Nor am I criticizing the users who interacted with DS at the Cambodia page. All I have tried to say here is that I've seen DS adding useful content in contentious topic areas where POV-pushing can be rife, and I think he has burnout and that perhaps an enforced break would be better than a CBAN. My apologies if my previous comments indicated otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: Then I would invite you to peruse these threads: Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 4#What the fucking fuck is wrong with this? & Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 3#For fucks sake, among others. As well as this ANI discussion: NPA, unblock conditions. I can assure you that the user's behaviour has been both highly disruptive at that article. He has been blocked several times since those discussions transpired, culminating with Cambodian genocide Talk page. Hundreds, if not thousands, of users edit Wikipedia every day without getting blocked; it's not that hard :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I am not seeing anything particularly egregious in any of those threads, with the possible exception of deliberately breaking 1RR (though even there he adds a "feel free to block me" to the edit summary). What I am seeing are some pretty standard content disputes, albeit with some colourful language and the occasional arguably fairly mild breach of WP:CIV from DS. Is this really the kind of fare we want to CBAN productive contributors over? These threads just pretty much reinforce my view that we would be better off simply blocking such contributors for a week for any breach of WP:CIV and leaving it at that. The escalating block model may be useful in some circumstances, but using it on otherwise constructive editors who struggle with CIV has always seemed like overkill to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I do not care about DS's use of profanities or personal attacks. What concerns me is the total lack of cooperative spirit. I tried cooperate, and was heartened when DS did what I asked and immediately sought to encourage him/her (although I felt DS was editing too rapidly). The history of bans makes clear this is not a one-off thing. I also encountered DS one time before this, and was angered that DS mercilessly stroke down a constructive contribution by an IP, and was awarded for his/her behaviour. I felt bad for the IP, who probably got a bad impression of Wikipedia. If we want Wikipedia to continue to improve, then we need new blood and cooperative behaviour. This is the "'cultural' shite" I was talking about. I unfortunately think DS's manbabyism is beyond hope. Uglemat (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. The trail of incoherent and ugly edit summaries presented deserve a response but a community ban is not the appropriate one. A block for a lengthy period of time, say three months, should bring DS to their senses, at least for a while. The reality is that DS is a good content editor who tends to go off the rails on occasion. If we can use a judicious combination of blocks to retain the constructive parts of their work, then we should do just that. Wikipedia's problems come less from the editors who can't quite control their language but do adhere to sources, balance, and npov, and more from the editors who politely push their agendas. If we keep throwing out the former, we're losing the battle. --regentspark (comment) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Believe me, no one on Wikipedia could possibly sympathize more with your final two sentences than I do. (If you don't believe me, Ctrl+F my name at WP:RESTRICT and read through the whole thing -- and User:Curly Turkey, Nishidani, Johnuniq and Kingsindian would likely tell you the same.) But how could a three-month block make any difference when two indefinite blocks, one staying in place for two full years and only lifted with a heavy string of unblock conditions (which he has violated on a regular basis since), did not work? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I'm a practical sort of guy. We have a very prolific contributor who edits in contentious areas but has the tendency to go off the rails. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by removing this contributor from Wikipedia, I'd rather let them edit, and then issue blocks when they start going berserk. Not escalating blocks but fixed length blocks (3 months sounds about right to me) that will allow them to return, contribute to the pedia for a while, rinse, and repeat. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: He's not that prolific: several people (at least one apparently with some kind of personal grudge) are saying that CT's language is worse and should therefore be treated similarly, despite the fact that (a) CT is not currently under a civility sanction that he has been repeatedly violating, and (b) CT's edit count is three times higher (and his mainspace edit count six times higher) than that of DS. On top of this, the Cambodian genocide article is not a "tendentious area" at least as it relates to the recent disruption: he is not arguing with genocide deniers or anything like that, and is apparently just being disruptive for the hell of it. Your proposal is interesting, but it is not and never has been in accordance with standard Wikipedia operating procedure; you are also basically suggesting that his existing sanctions, several of which require motions voted upon by the Arbitration Committee to be lifted, be either removed or made unenforcible, as "escalating blocks" (and an indef block on the fourth offense) are explicitly demanded. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, DS should be allowed to edit again in the India Pakistan space (assuming that's the sanction you're talking about). But, clearly, we're having a hard time distinguishing between Wikipedia as an encyclopedia building project and Wikipedia as a social network so that's not likely to happen. Regardless, I think I've said my piece and am willing to let the chips fall where they will. I suggest, looking at the extensive comments you've been making here, that you do the same. --regentspark (comment) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support DS was already indef blocked for about 2 years and unblocked less than a year ago. In such cases, when a user is unblocked after a long time of being blocked, it is often said by participants in the unblock discussion that it will be easy to reinstate the block if the editor becomes disruptive again. Apparently that's not true if you have enough friends. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Blocking an editor for disruptive behavior is easy enough to achieve and I doubt you'd have seen much opposition if a standard block of escalating magnitude had been sought instead. Seeking a site ban or an equivalent community imposed indefinite block is quite another matter, however. I am personally not here as a friend of DS at all but as an enemy of hasty bans where standard technical blocks are more than sufficient. If you read the opposition, I believe you will see that others are essentially saying the same thing.--John Cline (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  It is at this juncture far too late for any indef block of DS to be hasty. Lepricavark (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. As per RegentsPark. We can't lose sight of the enormous contribution that DS has made to the project and likely to make again. Siteban is an overkill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support; we've given this user more than enough chances to fix their behavior, but they clearly haven't. I'm convinced that a temporary block with escalating blocks afterwards will achieve nothing; just look at their block log. He clearly got the message, many times I may add, but still continues to do the things we tell him not to do. An indefinite block with community approval to unblock, which may as well be a siteban, should be the only way forward. SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A number of editors on both sides of this discussion appear to be unaware of a relevant change to policy from last May. The "supports" are largely pro-SBAN/CBAN per the understanding that a "community indefinite block" is the same as a site ban, but if this were the case then the policy that a community unblock cannot be undone without community assent would be redundant with the concept of a site ban (which is what a number of the "supports" have said); the "opposes" seem to largely think a "site ban" is going too far and a "regular indefinite block" that is "appealable in the standard fashion" would be enough, but if an indefinite block is imposed by community consensus it already is not appealable in the standard fashion. Dennis Brown and I appear to be the only ones who have noticed the problem here (one of the "opposes" actually said "per Dennis" and then went on to say the opposite of what Dennis said in light of the "community block" concept), and even we don't agree since he still recognizes more than a cosmetic difference between a community block and a ban while I do not. I don't know how this problem could be addressed, but I don't envy the closer's job -- I considered pinging everyone who had !voted so far, drawing their attention to the 2017/05 discussion and asking if they were aware of the distinction (for the supports) or lack thereof (for the opposes) between a community block and a ban, but that feels a little BLUDGEON-y. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The policy change to WP:CBAN you're referring to says, in pertinent part, Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". If an indef is imposed after due consideration by the community, it's a CBAN. Again, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I'm really not sure how you can distinguish the two when the outcome of a community-imposed indef. is defined as a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• In practice, there is no difference between a community-imposed indefinite block where no specific conditions have been set for unblocking, and a community-imposed ban, as both must be appealed to the community. It would be odd that an administrator-imposed indefinite block that was reviewed by the community is considered to be a defacto community ban, and yet the analogous scenario where the community imposed the block is not. Accordingly, in the interest of allowing the discussion in May to reach a compromise solution, the change to extend the description of an "editing restriction" to include a community indefinite block was not objected to. Nonetheless it does not effectively change existing practice. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a net negative. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Support site ban, now that I've seen his antics at Talk:Cambodian genocide. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban DS had to make an appeal to the now-defunct BASC, which resulted in an extensive list of unblock conditions that he went and violated just after they expired, resulting in 2 more blocks. One would also have to consider DS's history as DarknessShines2, based on their admission here, who was also community banned and you have one of the longest block logs of any user in WP. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban per regentspark. —MBL ^Talk 06:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - can't believe that given the history, people are actually raising procedural concerns between a community indef and a community ban, which are literally the same thing in practice, and, per GracefulSlick, claiming that a ban would be "overkill". What? Seriously?! This user was blocked over and over again, until they were indeffed. They were then unblocked, and then indeffed again. Then, they were unblocked again, after two years, and they've gotten themselves blocked five times since their return less than a year ago. WTF. Why are people still defending this user? Because of procedural questions? Really? Or because it's too harsh? Too harsh to permaban someone who was allowed to return from an indef block, for a second time, and has wracked up five blocks since then? Really? Too harsh? Where do we draw the line? The 8th chance? The 9th? Swarm ♠ 08:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Too many problems from this user, and their username is offensive.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  09:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the good contributions Darkness Shines have made shouldn't be the sole focus; you could make a strong argument that the consistent incivility and rudeness he has displayed towards just about everyone he disagrees with has driven away many people that otherwise would still be contributing positively. We will never know. But at some point a line has to be drawn about this kind of gleefully uncivil "I can get away with it nyah nyah nyah" behaviour, and I think the line was passed months ago. Fish+Karate 11:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban I would prefer some sort of mandatory mentoring/oversight by an admin - clearly indef blocks dont work. The problem I have is that on the substance of a lot of Darkness Shines recent issues is they are often correct. Or at least following policy as it applies to content. And ENWP is very very bad at resolving that sort of conflict with editors who are uncivil. Or rather, it resolves it by disappearing the loudest voice. Which doesnt fix the underlying problem. I also endorse heavily John Cline's comments above. Its amazingly un-evenhanded to be banning someone while letting comments like 'jizzy mitts' go relatively unsanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Mentoring? For someone with 32,000 edits spread out over four years? Also, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) isn't subject to editing restrictions, let alone flaunting them shamelessly, and everyone here is in agreement that profanity is not the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijari, I havnt read a more uncivil sentence from one editor to another this week than 'keep your hands covered in masturbatory juices off'. Its not profanity thats the problem its just offensive on many levels. But thats an aside, as for mentoring, I was thinking more of someone willing to be a sounding board for DS. 'This is fucking stupid and the editor is an idiot' 'Sure, but you cant tell them that'. Ideally DS would have an off-wiki outlet for their frustration, but again thats not something ENWP handles particularly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's Only in death demonstrating how disruptive and ineffective ANI is. Only one editor was disrupting the Cambodian genocide article. "Jizzy mitts" in no way prevented anyone from improving the article or from engaging in productive discussion. How are you helping to get the editors at that article back to productivity? Nobody actually involved in the dispute gives two shits about DS's language—why are you trying to refocus the discussion on language?—rather than the editwarring, the restoring of problematic content, the refusal to engage in good-faith discussion, and other disruptions? That's not a rhetorical question.

I called out John Cline for his "agitated user" comment, and he refuses to respond and show us who or what "agitated" DS. These are the comments you "endorse heavily"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what agitated him? Its never appropriate to refer to another editor in that manner, and it would be hypocritcal in the extreme to endorse some form of ban for incivility while bullshit like that is being directed at the editor. Your reply effectively boils down to 'I can insult them because they were the problem'. Talk about self-justification. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Who gives a shit what agitated him?"—Again demonstrating the same issues ANI has dealing with disruption, Only in death, but this is key: Nobody agitated Darkness Shines, but this is the axiom you're working from. You're trawling for people to sanction rather than looking for concrete solutions to concrete problems. That's a problem far worse than "jizzy mitts". You don't think so? Demonstrate how my comments contributed to the whole deadlock at the article—then demonstrate how the situation would have been any better at all if DS had chosen "polite" words. That's right OiD—the language contributed nothing to the problem.

And yet, here you are talking about a "ban for incivility" when incivility is not what people are calling to sanction him for. Are you even bothering to read what you're responding to? If you're "opposing" sanctions for incivility, please state so explicitly so the closer can ignore your !vote. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion that incivility has nothing to do with calls in this thread that DS be sanctioned requires respondents to ignore the very subheading which brought this discussion about where the misconduct is delineated as edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks. I can't help but wonder if you've bothered to read what you're responding to in light of such context.--John Cline (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

John Cline: So you admit that you've ignored the content of the discussion? Thank you for putting that on record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I really do not care if your disgusting personal attack contributed to the 'problem' or not. If you talk to an editor like that again I will revert you immediately under NPA. Other editor's issues do not give you license to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear you're not here to solve any problems—all the better if you can contribute to inflating them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with a user not named "Darkness Shines", then go file that complaint elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Begoon and Gatoclass, who together have saved me typing any more than this single sentence. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban I saw this before it was closed the first time, was surprised about the level of support since I thought DS was one of those editors who'd it'll always be difficult to cban no matter the problems. Considered saying something but then later it was closed. I'm less surprised now. Anyway DS obviously does a lot of good work. Unfortunately they also have serious problems collaborating with others. This isn't just because of the language. The example which started this is a good example. The article clearly has serious problems that need to be dealt with. But DS's way of dealing them, even if we put the language aside appeared to create more problems then they solved. And despite the fact that DS often does good work, I'm not convinced that even if all other editors had left DS alone to work on the article for a few days it would have been as good as it's hopefully going to be with good collaboration even without DS involved. As always a site ban doesn't have to be permanent. Maybe the history here will make it difficult to come back, but then again there is surely some way DS can shown they've changed enough to come back. If they really can't that's rather unfortunate but wikipedia is never going to be suitable for everyone and sometimes no matter what good someone does, they end up being a net negative. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• There seems to be (almost) universal consensus that the User keeps doing the same things over and over that lead to considerations/enactments of lengthy blocks or bans -- so now, on offer is CBAN, Administrative ban, and lengthy block (again) -- on the basis of this discussion and record, support CBAN. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban — Per Regentparks.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban for two reasons: First, as has been pointed out numerous times, this is nothing new. Dat block list, tho. That is pretty clearly not the block log of an editor who descends into disruptive behavior when frustrated, but of an editor who regularly engages in disruptive behavior. Second, I just want to get this over with, and an extra support !vote helps with that. Bear in mind: this right here is part of the disruption we're trying to cut down on. It may feel like we're being helpful by editing this page, but everyone here is spending time reading and typing on a topic that will be archived and eventually forgotten about instead of improving articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I don't like the tendentious editing, myself. The block log and the edit summaries speak for themselves. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Enough is enough. To those arguing for a shorter-term sanction, what is the rationale for assuming this will do anything that his past 28 blocks have failed to accomplish? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indefinite community block. Despite some good content work, this person is unable to participate successfully in a collaborative project, as their long block record and self-admissions show very clearly. It is quite sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• My Comment (Support): When I saw Jayron32 had blocked Darkness Shines‎, I was not sure whether to be glad or sorry; but when I saw SarekOfVulcan had unblocked DS again, I was sure that I was not surprised. This is not first time DS is blocked indefinitely (!!!) and then he appeared again. In fact, his history is replete with blocks, and unblocks, and misbehavior, and edit wars, and reverts, and foul remarks, and use of crappy & funny language, and… okay, drop the list. The previous time Heimstern blocked DS with an expiration time of indefinite, he did a nice job. But when Cyberpower678 unblocked DS on 29 May 2017, he again opened the Pandora’s Box at one hand, and redefined the term "indefinite" on the other. DS also made no mistake to seize the opportunity, and this Mighty King started his new adventure. Among many of his accomplishments onward, one which is of interest to me was that with just one click, he reverted my days of hard work without consulting or without giving others time to discuss. He even lied in the edit summary. What a superb editor he is, thanks to the unblocking admins.

Blocking DS is a slap on the admins because DS knows he will come back and will be able to do the same thing for which he was blocked. A good mock. And unblocking DS is a slap on the wiki editors, a nagging pain for them.

Admins block him, then admins unblock him, and again he goes on a mighty adventure, and the fellow editors suffer a lot, and then someone has to take it to ANI, then a board meeting is called there, and scholars meet again to decide something, and this goes on…. We are all maze runners running in a maze, and don’t know how and from where to come out.

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like DS will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that DS is back again with his problematic behavior? -AsceticRosé 18:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough? --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban/community indef I will simply copy something I said in the past when there was discussion about how to handle another 'content creator' who just could not get along with others:

  Every single volunteer organization I have ever worked with had a very simple policy about volunteers - If you can not get along with the other people, no matter what your contribution, your services are no longer welcome. If you cause disruption ongoing controversy, whether it is your fault or not and no matter your contribution, your services are no longer welcome. This is basic to the continued well being of any volunteer organization and it is essential to the long term continued viability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a 'special snowflake', people have been managing volunteer organizations for a very long time use the knowledge that has been accumulated... Jbh^Talk 01:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)]]

  This is volunteer management 101 and until this principle is recognized these perennial time sink discussions will continue to be a drag on the project. Jbh ^Talk 19:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant support of block/ban. Since DS's comment below refers to the CWG stalking, but the discussion that started the thread was an unrelated topic, I don't think further editing right now is wise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support site or community ban. Given the fact (again) he has (though this time not explicitly, just by actions, unlike then last time) he has said "block me or drop it" it is time for a block. No user should be able to play chicken with an ANI and win. It is clear he hold edds, admins and ANI in total contempt. Yes he is here to build an encyclopedia, one that has HIS approval. He is not only now operating with a mentality that own pages, but thinks he owns the project (and thus can do as he wishes, and if he does not get his way goes "well it my way or I leave").Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support I've grown tired of this issue and have given up. WP:SO and all, yadda yadda, let's move on. Nihlus 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per various others. Stikkyy t/c 23:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Little fast there

Community ban decided in 11 hours? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It was unanimous, and though there weren't that many !votes, those that were made cover a wide swathe of editor demographics. There's no reasonable cause to think that letting it run longer would change the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: To be fair, it wasn't quite unanimous. One fairly new account who admitted to this in their !vote issued a "weak oppose". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, look at that. It kinda got buried in the avalanche I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If a consensus develops here that it wasn't open long enough, we can re-open it to see if the vote swings a different way. It's now been an additional 8-9 hours or so, and no one has yet shown up to say they intended to vote any differently than had been expressed above. Comments are always welcome... --Jayron32 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll just point out that I was sleeping entirely, with the exception of responding to a talk page ping, when the discussion was open.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is fast; but unless somebody wants to oppose it there's no need to re-open it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned because the people who were involved in quite a few cases have a very pre-determined opinion of DS, often going back years, usually due to their perception of civility which, it must be said, is often very different from the UK etc perception. I don't see a "wide swathe" of editor demographics but rather a narrow selection. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a British editor and I found his behaviour unacceptable. !dave 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I know you are and that you did. One swallow does not a summer make. There are people who cannot handle robust commentary everywhere but there is a tendency on Wikipedia to find them more based in the US than in the UK or Australia and so on. It's something to do with wanting to be the morality police and yet the bollocks they spout about how, for example, it doesn't happen in the workplace is just that, bollocks. No community ban should be enforced on such a short hearing. Alas, I am unlikely to be around this weekend if the discussion is re-opened so there isn't much point in me asking for that. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that (i) I opened the thread, (ii) I'm Irish, (iii) the Irish (particularly people hailing from Dublin north of the Liffey, which is where I am from) are well-known for their vulgarity relative to the British, supposedly going back to when we first adopted English and determined that this savage foreign language with a poetic tradition far inferior to our own was only useful for cursing, and (iv) I agreed with the site-ban proposal (even hinting at it in my opening comment -- "to go where it looks likely to go") based on the right-out-the-door incivility. That said, I agree with SarekOfVulcan that this was rather fast. The previous proposal was shot down because DS was already temporarily blocked and unable to defend himself, and closing the discussion in barely longer than the amount of time most people sleep in a single night seems to go against the spirit of fairness that prevented that from happening last time. I don't see it going anywhere different even if it remained open for a week, but that's how the procedure should go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These typically take 24 hours, and are closed shortly after. There has been a trend of late to close ones that are snowing early, and while I don't personally like it and don't think it should be done, I also don't see the point of reopening a discussion when no one seems to have objected to the actual ban (unless you do, Sitush, in which case, I think there is a case to be made for allowing it to be open for an additional 24 hours.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing the requisite assumption that the British (or even Irish) are more lax about civility than Americans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was only really talking about the cursing, not incivility in general. Certainly most of the fouler words I quoted at the top of this thread are words that an American probably wouldn't use even if he would use even worse ones, as they're Anglo-Irish slang (arse, feck, etc.). And I'll go to my grave believing the British borrowed "feck" from us, since the Irish word for "to see" is "feic" (pronounced the same) and I'm pretty sure the early modern Irish just adopted their word for "to see" as a euphemism for English "fuck". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I was actually responding to Sitush. It was their comment that contained the "requisite assumption" I mentioned. On the frequency of the use of curse words, it's possible that America might be behind Ireland, but in terms of general incivility, welll... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that the use of robust language is common in the US but it is US-based contributors to this project who tend to bang the drum, at least in my experience. Some of them are in the discussion above and at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago even though to the best of my knowledge they have never resorted to such terms. Wikipedia isn't a workplace, where we are paid and told what to do, but rather a big city with 5 million houses, many derelict, and a small population. There are plenty of byways and houses etc that people can frequent if they do not care for something. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hold on there; comments like at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago are pretty questionable, especially when made at ANI rather than, say, DS's user talk page, and if you are going to criticize someone like that you should at least name names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• In general I think having a discussion which bans a long term and prolific editor close in short time is bad form. Why not open it back up and let it run for another 24 hrs? I seriously doubt that the outcome will change but it will avoid the drama and bad feelings that are bound to come up when this is discussed in the future. -- Prolong it now to shorten the pain later. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley hit the nail on the head here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually have serious doubts as to whether prolonging the discussion will help. I've taken that exact position in the past, and each time I've seen that the extra time didn't actually assuage any hurt feelings or drama. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt it. This is just a procedural matter. Honestly, if I was DS I would probably want this matter to be over with as soon as possible one way or the other. But clearly (look at his talk page) he has a lot of friends who wanted to voice their opinions, and they are not getting banned, so not leaving them feeling shafted by a procedurally questionable prematurely closed SBAN discussion should be priority 1 as far as I am concerned. (And yes, I am aware that anyone reading this might see my third sentence as a passive-aggressive "Y'know, you wouldn't be doing him any favours...". But that's really not how I roll these days. If I don't express my honest opinion -- that another 24 hours won't change anything and that it'd only be more drama -- people might tell me I was "wrong" later, when in fact in my gut I was actually right.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's enough concern about this outcome that I support re-opening the discussion. We may need stronger language around the "at least 24 hours" part in WP:CBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Let it run longer. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this sorta thing for AN not AN/I? Arkon (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arkon: I've seen a lot of people say that, and the interwiki links on this page seem to support that assertion, but in reality I don't think the distinction (ANI for blocks, AN for bans) has ever been strictly enforced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jayron32, would you mind undoing your close and transferring the text of the proposal/!votes to AN, as people have objected to it being here too. There seems to be an emerging consensus to let it run for another 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with CBAN discussions being quickly closed, even recent ones which I myself have supported... to the point where I would support a policy amendment to set something like a three day minimum for such a proposal to get community input. We certainly should not be closing a discussion in the time when half of the world is still asleep, and hasn't really had the chance to wake up yet. GMG^talk 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Since Jayron32 said he would not object to re-opening if there appears to be a consensus to re-open, I've gone ahead and did it for him.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's cool. I have no problem letting this run longer as needed. It's clear that people have more to say about. No harm there. --Jayron32 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support letting this run longer. I don't think it will require a full 30 days, but definitely at least until, say, midweek. Give the weekenders time to come in and see this, plus people who primarily edit during work hours a bit more time to come in during the week. I really think this, among other issues, is yet another thing that needs to be addressed when and if we (as a community) handle comprehensive banning policy reform as I've advocated in several cases recently. We need to stop doing patchwork fixes and leaving the fundamental problems with how we handle these discussions unaddressed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 30 days is not the standard for a ban discussion. 24 hours is. I'd be open to leaving it longer open if there was substantial opposition, but if not, it should probably be closed around the 24 hour mark. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Tony here. But should clarify that it's 24 hours after reopening -- 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC) -- as 24 hours total time being open is super-messy. Per my above comments (and I think probably the opinions of everyone here) I can't see the consensus changing much either way. Sitush's comment above that they would be busy this weekend is a little concerning, but one editor couldn't overrule that no matter how many days they had, even if that was what they intended to try. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on the clarification point. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not busy, just won't have access. I have a DHCP server failure and am running out of data allowance on mobile. I have mentioned this elsewhere this week, eg: on my talk page. Waiting for a new device. My objection is primarily regarding the summary closure - I've not even really delved into the diffs etc because I am very close to my limit now having spent far too much time buggering about with a BLP that should have been fully protected when it went to AfD, imo. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

24 hours is considered the barest minimum for a ban discussion. It's not the standard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• This crops up time and time again. Can someone please explain why there's a rush to close banning discussions? If the editor is currently being disruptive that can be solved with a block. Otherwise it saves a lot of time and discussion when the editor or someone else complains that not all interested community members had a chance to comment. I'd really like a modification to WP:CBAN stating discussions must be left open for at least 24 hours (I'd like 48 but I'll take what I can get). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Per my above reply to MPants (and some stuff in DS's comments on his talk page since this thread was opened), the longer the discussion stays open, the better for the ban recipients' "friends" who are not directly affected, but in near-unanimous cases like this (which are probably the only ones that get shut after the minimum wait time), after a certain point (and I think we had already reached that point even before Jayron's initial close) it becomes just a matter of more and more people piling on to badmouth the editor who might as well already be blocked, which is overkill, and borders on GRAVEDANCE when the editor in question has made it fairly clear they are not going to defend themselves on ANI. I agree that the discussion should be left open as a procedural matter, but I don't think increasing the minimum wait time to 48 hours in cases like this would do much good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: And the shorter the discussion stays open, the better for opponents of the editor to steamroll through a sanction. All sides - opponents, supporters, uninvolved (who usually take longer to comment) - should get at least the chance to be heard. Again, this helps to prevent discussions like this from having to be held. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I would probably support you from a procedural standpoint if you made that proposal. I just think that in cases that seem like foregone conclusions, all leaving it open does is allow the "Yeah, ban 'em" comments to keep piling up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Everything NeilN has said. This is part of why I believe we need comprehensive banning policy reform. Perhaps, once a discussion has hit 24 hours we should make a preliminary assessment of the consensus, and perhaps preliminarily block, but there absolutely shouldn't be a final, binding closure until the discussion has been open long enough for folks with lives outside Wikipedia, tech problems, and other issues to get their statements under consideration. Otherwise, we're gonna be finding ourselves in progressively more frustrating situations where we either foreclose discussion as coming too late (despite WP:NOTBURO), or keep allowing the discussion to be reopened to accommodate more comments. There are so many other problems with banning discussions though. We really need to fix this problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN - Feel free to propose it with all the fanfare of a central RfC. I'd support, and it'd probably be more well received coming from you rather than me anyway. GMG^talk 02:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• +1 - Agree with Neil the discussion shouldn't of been closed so quickly and I too would support some sort of change to WP:CBAN so that discussions remain atleast 48 hours open (Not everyone checks ANI every day so 48 would be better imho). –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

To start off: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Proposal_for_mandatory_minimum_duration_length_for_CBAN_discussions. Further discussion should probably take place there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Participants in a collaborative community should be able to exercise self-restraint and avoid piling onto a discussion where consensus has already been clearly established, and to avoid antagonizing other members of the community with unfriendly behaviour. If they can't, the remedy should address the problematic editors, rather than seeking to cut short the ability of others to participate. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sometimes I think previous related discussions should be taken into consideration. But this was closed indeed too early, I am glad it's being re-opened. Alex Shih (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lessons Learned, Comment, Continuing Consensus, and Take CBAN Reform to Village Pump

First, there is clearly a lesson learned that premature closure of a ban discussion actually extends the ban discussion. If waiting for 24 or 48 hours allows the subject to rally their friends to oppose the ban, maybe there isn't really a community consensus. If there is no consensus, only widespread opposition that is not consensus, maybe the case needs to go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Second, I think that enough time has elapsed that further argument will not change things. Either there is a consensus after all to ban Darkness Shines, or there isn't. If yes, close this with a ban. If not, close with a stupid warning, knowing that either the community or the ArbCom will still have to do the dirty deed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Third, take any discussion of ban reform to Village pump (policy) or some other village pump. Any discussions here just generate heat in place of light. (What do you expect when the user is Darkness Shines?) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: "CBAN Reform" sounds a little formal, but I can see merit in a WP:BRD change to the current CBAN guidelines that advises against SNOW-closing CBAN !votes in favour of banning a user before the 24 hour mark. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Alfie: Per some more-recent discussion further up involving me, Dennis Brown (who I think is tired of me pinging him), Isaacl (talk · contribs) (who made a good point in an on-wiki response to a related email I sent them, here) and Mendaliv (talk · contribs), I think if there is need for policy reform at this juncture, the more pressing, and the more long-term significant, issue is actually not timing of closes, but rather the distinction or lack thereof between a "community block" and a "ban".

In this case, I originally filed this report based on DS having violated various editing restrictions to which he was apparently subject (some Arbitration, others community, I figured ANI was the best place to file, since technically the relevant Arbitration sanctions were not really DS-specific restrictiins but a strong statement that "the policy applies to you and you will be blocked for violating it"), so if the community decides that a "block" (using that word) is the best way to deal with his violation of these restrictions, is the resulting block just an enforcement measure by a lone admin, or is it a "community block"? Is an admin at liberty to phrase his/her close in terms that bring the particular block down on one side or the other? Do !votes that include wording like Support The community has had enough of this user's disruption. count as comments in favour of a substantially different outcome from those that are worded like Support The community has had enough of this user's violations.? I honestly don't know, and there may not be an easy answer in this case.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think discussion like that belongs at the WP:VP as Robert suggested - I'm simply concerned that the thread was closed far too early in favour of a CBAN, and we should try to avoid that happening again. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dummy ping Hijiri88 because I am good at typoing -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reclosing? Or Another Unpleasant Proposal?

It has now been 72 hours since I originally made my unpleasant proposal. It appears that the !vote is 25-11 in favor of either an Very Long Block or a Site Ban (to be enforced by a very long block), although my count may be off, and does not take into account some of the conditions noted. I would suggest either that an administrator reclose this, with either a ban or some other sort of very long block, or that someone else make some other unpleasant proposal. As I originally noted, if the community doesn't act, someone will ask the ArbCom to act, and eventually either the community or the ArbCom will have to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: FWIW, I feel like "25-11" doesn't accurately reflect the discussion, as most of the "11" either (a) admitted that their own alternative proposals are far too weak (and therefore unlikely to work) in that they are steps down from the previous two indefinite blocks, (b) made seemingly irrelevant counter-proposals like "TBAN from American politics" (which wouldn't prevent disruption like that seen at the Cambodian genocide article) or yet another final warning about uncivil behaviour and/or edit-warring, or (c) consist largely of non-sequitur arguments about a cabal of "civil POV-pushers" which doesn't apparently include either me (the original OP) or you (the author of the unpleasant proposal) and which also had nothing to do with the recent disturbance at the Cambodian genocide article (where DS could not have been "worn down" by civil POV pushers, as he was the instigator).

I supported (quite actively) the reopening of the discussion, but rapidly thereafter came to regret that support, as all that seemingly came from it apart from more people piling on to agree to the proposal (as I had predicted) was one reasonable argument from Dennis Brown and a bunch of friends of DS showing up and ignoring all the specific disruption under discussion while talking about what a great guy he is (and what a terrible guy Curly Turkey is ... !?) and how he shouldn't have to abide by our conduct standards like the rest of us, or even by his own clearly defined editing restrictions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice he had a topic ban until now (AGF is a suicide pact...), but he has also been flouting his TBAN from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed".[264][265][266] Those are just the ones that happen to mention those countries (or the closely related country Bangladesh) by name in either the edit summary or article title; I have no idea how many times he has actually violated this ban.

I sympathize (by god do I sympathize!) with an editor who has been banned from a very broad topic area that covers all of their primary editing interests, but he needs to appeal this ban if he wants to edit those articles. It's simply not fair to other prolific and constructive contributors who have been treated to bans and work to appeal them the right way if DS is allowed ignore his bans.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While there may not be a consensus for a site ban, it is clear that almost every editor feels that DS deserves a block of at least several weeks duration. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this, if he is so useful would it not be an idea to identification his areas of actual expertise and just ban him from all articles except a list of those he has real value (due to competence) in? Or maybe even a general requirement to make no edits without first getting agreement, a ban on editing articles in effect but not from asking for edits to be made, thus forcing him to cooperate.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll finally make a comment before the inevitable block, should any other editor have to put up with months of shite, then get sanctioned for it after pointing out they are being being harassed, so ya I got pissed off and lost it, look through my recent history and you'll see, but so long and thanks for all the fish Darkness Shines (talk)

What? What months of shit? Did you get months of shit on the Cambodian Genocide page?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And as if to make clear exactly what he thinks of sanctions and promises [267] not even 12 hours after this edit [268] when he is expressly banned form making any edits to a page CWG has made for 30 days, whilst having an open ANI (though to be fair CWG is also in violation of it). This is a quite illuminating level of contempt and dismisal of the whole ANI process by an editor who clearly thinks he is above and beyond the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

here is a pretty blatant topic ban violation by DS that just happened. Just in case anyone thought he operated in good faith.--Jorm (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just gotta ask the question I suppose...Jorm, are you stalking DS? Your contribs appear that way to me, and that's part of this whole kerfluffle. Poke poke poke, OH LOOK AT THEM. Arkon (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not as such, no. AFAIK I was on all my pages first, but I don't care over much. In this case, I was wondering what he was editing while we were having this discussion, saw "shit source" and wondered what that was about. But either way: I am not the subject of this discussion.--Jorm (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be. Arkon (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Given I ain't tbanned from that article what the hell are you on about? Answer already given by Arkon Darkness Shines (talk)

How many days was it since it was edited by someone you're interaction banned with?--Jorm (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(Oops. I said "topic ban" and I meant "interaction ban." Apologies.--Jorm (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good luck getting that to fly, he broke it, he self reverted, I'm not in violation of fuck all Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And is now close to edit warring on that page with 3 reverts [269], [270], [271], common really, at a time when he is subject to an ANI and he is acting like this? This is totaly deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) And this [272] Now as far as I know no SPI has been launched (let alone conformed it is a sock) and he has not said who it is a sock off.Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That is so obviously a fucking sock, yet you'd rather sed me crucified than worry about that? Well done Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No I would rather have you obey the same rules as everyone else, not flout them blatantly. I am only trying to "crucify you" because have said "WELL NAIL ME TO A CROSS OR LEAVE ME ALONE, BUT DON'T EXPECT TO OBEY YOUR RULES". Your actions led you here, no one else, so stop blaming others and take some damn responsibility for your actions (such as doing what you say and walk away from the project for a while, and stop holding to to ransom with "give me what I want or I will go home").Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have semi'd that page. The 2600 IP is a sock of a banned user, so nice work Jorm for restoring their work, now can we get back to discussing the issue in hand? Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked as a sock, so as usual you are wrong, which US why you want me gone cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears you was right (he was a sock), but I did not say he was not a sock, I said you had no proof and if you did you should present it (not just delete comments in an ANI you are party to, I do not consider that ethical, even if he is a sock). I do not want you gone, I want you to obey the rules. If you cannot then you should go, this is not a desire, that aplpies just to yo. I would say this about any user who so frequently and fragrantly breaks the rules (if you note I did not single you out for the IBAN, I blamed both of you).Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can we close this yet? How much more time to we have to waste on this? --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (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.

Derogatory 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.

---

Sport and politics made an edit on WrestleMania 34 here despite it being source and content supported by source. After it was undone by a user other than myself he undid it again here. After it was once again undone by a user other than myself he added it back for a third time here here. I now came in and this page was previously locked for similar types of edit warring, so I had opened a conversation on this matter to the talk page Talk:WrestleMania 34#Page locked over two weeks ago, to which no one including this user chose to reply to. Therefore since there was no clear consensus I reverted this again with the intention of going to the users page to alert him to the discussion. Before i was able to he opened his own conversation here Talk:WrestleMania 34#Match speculation.

After I explained to him why he was incorrect, he then went to my talk page to make the same arguments again here. Based on his comments I felt it was clear his intentions were to edit war rather than to engage in a conversation, so I simply responded with if he added it back again I would report him for edit warring, and I issued a warning on his page here.

Now for why I am coming here instead of WP:ANEW. Instead of again engaging in a conversation he chose to make comments like " talk second wanker who is typical of tiny endowed males". Personal attacks and derogatory comments. He then decided to issue me an edit warring message instead here, which I removed, as I am more than allowed to do. He felt that I am apparently not allowed to do that and added it back to my page here. I feel that this persons actions are clearly violating multiple policies which is why I am bringing it here. - Galatz^Talk 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

YAWN.

This is a waste of time.

The discussion on my talk page is closed. A simple look at the very top of my page would indicate my preference regarding the placing of warnings on my page without discussion. Ignoring that is not going to be very constructive. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.

No one can give offence one can only take offence, and I cannot be responsible for how touchy and snowflakey other users are, particularly when they are placing garbage on my talk page. The comments are also general in nature and refer to a style of dumping warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in discussions, which this user is engaging in. The user would be in a far better position if they had an issue with my editing to set up a genuine discussion and not to jump in with threatening warnings. This discussion for example would not exist.

For the benefit of the user who has bought this discussion up here is what WP:civility states:

Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with,... Consider using a personal message instead....

This user should be aware that because they dislike what I have done it is not an excuse for them to perpetuate the behaviour they are complaining of. If they have an issue with reverting, they should not also be engaging in reverting. They should be having a civilised discussion.

I started the discussion on the article talk page, before they user placed such threatening warnings on my page, and they should have engaged in the discussion on the article talk page, as opposed to taking everything in such a high and mighty fashion. The user who has made this report is entirely at fault for the creation of the situation, wheen they should have been engaging on the article talk page.

It also helps if other users use correct pronouns for editors, I am not a he. I am a she. This is abundantly clear on my user page. Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the above comments confirm that this user is interested in solely proving they are right rather than reading what other people right. I clearly stated that I opened the dialog over 2 weeks ago, yet this user ignored that and proceeded to edit their position disregarding the talk page of the page they were editing. Additionally they have ignored the fact that I explained above the rationale for placing the warning on their talk page. Also according to Merriam-Webster the word he can be defined as used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified as you can see here. - Galatz^Talk 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Galatz, please make use of an editors preferred pronoun identification usage. You're now aware of it, if you weren't before, so please use it and don't dig a hole. Apologise on that instead of defending your edit and move on. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments came off that way, it was not my intention. - Galatz^Talk 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I just hear someone say "No one can give offence one can only take offence"? That sounds like something kids learn in kindergarten, one of many lies they're taught. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I will admit there is a lot of strength to the S&P incivility issues. Plus I'm sure we've seen her on this board multiple times before for similar. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're saying that although someone is discussing, because of the things they've done and said, you refuse to accept that they're actually willing to discuss the issue and so are not going to engage in the ongoing discussion and instead have decided to take a WP:Content dispute to ANI or continue to WP:Edit war? As far as I see, S&P posted on the article talk page, you replied, they replied and so it's awaiting further replies from you or someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My point of coming here is for their comments and actions outside of the discussion on the talk page. - Galatz^Talk 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

But for what? Realistically minor incivility like that is never going to result in sanction. And while 3RR is not a right, it's not likely someone will be blocked for only 3 reversion, even if it is against multiple other people, unless the edit itself is a serious problem (BLP vio, copyright problem). Especially when they are initiate a discussion after. If either side continues to edit war, you may start to expected either blocks or more likely for the article to be protected. I suggest you all just stop edit warring instead. In other words, sure S&P's behaviour may not be great, but it's not the sort of thing for which there is any hope of action for ANI so I ask again, why are you bringing this content dispute to ANI? The only thing here which seems to be a real problem is the reversion of your removal of their warning on your talk page. (Something you only mentioned at the end of your opening comment.) Per WP:OWNTALK that's clearly wrong. Still it's not something that needs to be at ANI unless S&P continues to add it back. Instead just politely point out OWNTALK to them and ask them not to revert. Something I've now done. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Their comments which I pointed out above are a clear violation of WP:NPA. There was a conversation already on the talk page which the user ignored, only after being reverted 3 times did they open a second thread in talk (note edit warring and 3RR are not the same, they still violated edit warring even without a 4th revert). Per WP:BRD they should have gone to talk after the first revert, not 3rd. Although each one individually may not warrant actions, I believe the combination of everything together is worthy of bringing to ANI. I understand you might not agree, and that is fine. I however felt that this did. - Galatz^Talk 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear there is no action to result from this discussion, and I call for this discussion to be closed. Galatz needs to move on from flogging this dead horse. This is getting very boring. Sport and politics (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This comment has not aged well, has it? I find it interesting that S&P has closed every single thread on her own talk page. That is highly unusual and reflects her unwillingness and/or inability to collaborate well with others. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't read the replies above since I'm a bit bored of this dispute but I just remembered something I forgot to say. I question the utility of issuing an edit warring warning to someone who had just warned you. The primary point of the warning is to ensure that: 1) The editor is aware of our policy on edit warring (particularly since admins are less willing to block if it's a minor violation and the editor is likely unaware) 2) To remind the editor they should try engage in discussion rather than edit warring. While I admit I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW, I would be surprised if any admin didn't block due to the lack of a warning if the editor themselves just issue a warning related to that dispute so just show them issuing the warning if needed, i.e. we can cross of 1. And if an editor isn't self aware enough to remember that they too should be engaging in discussion if involved in the dispute, I don't think warning them back is going to help so let's cross of 2. But anyway whatever. it happened. But I still strongly suggest rather than engaging in this pointless aside you concentrate on the dispute at hand on the article talk page. (Which itself looks like it will be moot in under 2 months.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sports and politics, this is of course not cool. Don't do that again. Galatz, I looked but I failed to see the clear violations of NPA. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Sport and politics: Also, make a comment like this again and you're looking at a block. I doubt we'd tolerate a similar comment made about a female editor and we're not having a double standard here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Whoa. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• That was the comment I was referring to. - Galatz^Talk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't see that, sorry--but I was looking for diffs and skimmed over the text. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Apologies, I read your reference to the comment above, but didn't read it properly and thought the extent of the incivility was a single instance of calling someone a wanker. I agree that with the second part of the comment it's a much more serious problem and worthy of bringing to ANI whether or not anything happens. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is pretty much their last comment. Still attacking other editors. I must say I am leaning towards a block for S&P for incivility and inability to work with others and collaborate. Sick of seeing her name here. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail, I certainly agree that any next blow below the belt should be followed by a block. I'd like to hear from Sports and politics; I want to know if she gets the point. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect a male editor making similarly nasty gendered insults against a female editor would have already been permablocked. Reyk _YO! 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• I suspect they'd be blocked for a period of time, yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sport and politics, sorry to interrupt your nap, but for all your yawning and dismissiveness there's a couple of admins here who are not quite done with you and your sexist jokes yet. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• New rule: any editing dispute over wrestling article to lead to immediate topic bans of all involved and deletion of the article. I think this will rapidly improve the project. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As much as I want to make a drive-by-witticism agreement with this, I'm forced to admit that if we do this, we may as well hang out a sign saying "Meat and sock puppets wanted. Apply within." Because an articles owned by puppets is the only way to avoid disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. EEng 06:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• What an odd coincidence that S&P has suddenly stopped editing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Well since we can't rely on them to come back to respond to us we need to make a decision. To block for the comments that most seem to agree are unacceptable or not. We do keep seeing her here on this board for her behaviour after all. Canterbury Tail talk 17:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• If anything, I think that a minimum action to take here is to put Sport and politics on a final warning and only warning basis regarding their civility and temperament towards other editors from here on out. If Sport and politics makes any more of these kinds of comments or responses towards another editor, I'll have absolutely no problem with applying a civility block on this user and without further discussion or warning brought to them first. This user's level of collaboration and communication is unacceptable and should not be tolerated any further. An editor with ~7,000 contributions and 5 years of tenure on Wikipedia should absolutely know better than this and should not have to be reminded to comply with Wikipedia's civility policies at all. All of Sport and politics comments and communications are to be in compliance with Wikipedia's civility policies and at all times - failure to do this will result in being blocked. Whether or not Sport and politics makes any kind of response here is irrelevant, and this warning should be applied here and moving forward regardless of their participation here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s acceptable and reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also support that. One of the reasons for my initial above comments is from my experience, simply calling someone a wanker without no other major aggravating factors like a strong history of personal attacks at worst results in an admin or other experience editor warning the editor. I've never considered these a particularly useful use of ANI time since ultimately anyone can issue a warning, without it having to be mentioned at ANI first. But these cases of a final or only warning with some level of community backing are one exception to such concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well, and have notified Sport and politics of this warning on her talk page. Swarm ♠ 08:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor not willing to follow policy

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 bot policy, which covers all automated, semi-automated and script-assisted editing, is clear that if any errors are introduced into the page then it is the responsibility of the editor making the (semi-)automated or assisted edit to ensure that they are fixed.

Walter Görlitz's edit to Minneapolis City SC introduced errors, specifically filling out references with the details of a domain squatting page rather than of the actual source. I fixed this [273] and left a message on their talk page to remind them of the need to fix it themselves in future [274]. This note was reverted with the summary No. You can fix the titles or removed the dead links. Thanks.. I followed this up with an explicit link to the policy, but was again rudely reverted with a refusal to follow policy [275].

Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to, but following the bot policy when making any (semi-)automated or assisted edits is not optional - hence I've come here.

For reference there are currently roughly 150 instances of pages with link metadata from domain squatting pages that use the phrase "this website is for sale" in the title [276] and undoubtedly plenty more from other variations (see User:Thryduulf/Domain reselling pages for a list of others I've encountered at least once while fixing this one). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Diff of my notifying Walter Görlitz of this thread, as it is likely to be reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do we not have a bot that fixes those by means of the wayback machine? I've manually done some over the years but figured that is so common that someone had made a bot to do that by now. As for Walter, our policy is pretty clear that every user owns their edits and is responsible for the content, automated or not, plus we have additional policy that covers automated edits since there is the risk of doing the wrong thing, many times, really fast. I'm curious to hear Walter's viewpoint on this situation before jumping to conclusions here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The InternetArchiveBot is apparently unable to (reliably?) distinguish between the original source and domain squatted web pages so it can only fix dead links and some redirected links, and it will sometimes add links to archived domain squatting pages. They thus have to be fixed manually. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well partially true. IABot can be told if an entire domain no longer functions. Then it will go looking for archives closest to the access date as possible.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this an ANI issue? I'm not sure what the notifying editor would like me to do here. I made the change late at night. He notified me of the problem and fixed it while I slept. I can't fix his fixes and I have acknowledged that I should check the edits so I am following policy. This edit is a bit aggressive on my part, but it reflects that he had already made the fixes. This revert makes it clear that I understand the policy and that I know the policy, Thryduulf fixed it, and now he's simply harassing me. So this is not an ANI issue that I can see, but would like to know what assurances @Thryduulf: would like from me. On the other hand, there misrepresentations here: "Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to" as I listened, and I responded. A revert without comment or archiving his comments would have show that I wasn't listening. As for a bot that fixes this, I haven't seen that it fixes parked sites, only ones that deal with deal links that are marked as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In neither of your reverts did you give me any indication that you had either acknowledged that this was an error or that you would look out for it in future - indeed pretty much the exact opposite. FWIW you introduced the same error at In Mourning (band) on 16 February [277]. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Look at the second revert, the one were I stated "I know the policy". What do those words mean to you?

And while we're at at, could you explain why you ignored Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, and slightly more to the point, you have not made the case that I have stated that I am "not willing to follow policy". You inferred or possibly assumed it. You did not seek clarification. You simply restored an edit that I had removed (which means I acknowleded it) and piled-on. In fact, I have stated in the edit summary when I removed your edit, and here, that I am willing to follow the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summaries read to me as meaning 1. "It's not my job to do this, fix it yourself." and 2. "I know the policy but that doesn't mean I'm going to follow it. Go away." You're reverts indicated that you'd seen the messages I'd left, but did not indicate that you acknowledged there was a problem nor that you were going to fix it if it occurred in the future. That you reverted clearly indicated to me that you were not interested in discussing the matter and did not want me posting on your talk page. didn't seek clarification because I saw nothing ambiguous about your statements - indeed they're essentially indistinguishable from someone engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. Compare how you responded with other responses to essentially identical posts: User talk:MarnetteD#Please check your automated and/or script-assisted edits, User talk:Chris0282#Please check your automated and/or script-assisted edits which clearly acknowledged there was an error and indicated that they would try to avoid making it in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So it's your interpretation of the edit summaries that need to be corrected. I believe that I've addressed the issue here in a clear and concise manor. Cheers.

Now, why did you ignore the guideline related to restoring removed comments? Should I also ask why you ignored the templating regulars, or is that just piling-on? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring comments is a guideline, and it is entirely appropriate behaviour when someone is engaged in IDHT - which is what your edit summaries said to me, whether I was right or wrong that was the clear and unambiguous message you sent me. If you don't want someone to think you're not hearing them then don't revert their comments while telling them to go away. As for templating the regulars, the only template I left was the ANI notification which is not optional - the big orange box above says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" (emphasis in the original). The two other messages I left you were individual messages alerting you to errors you introduced into an article and to the policy you seemed to be proclaiming you were not going to follow. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, restoring comments on his talk page is annoying and shouldn't be done. If he removes them, we can safely assume he has read them and he is responsible for knowing the content. Looking at it, I'm kind of shocked you did that and I would recommend you discontinue doing that on any user's talk page. As for Walter, if there is a pattern of him not following up with broken links, we need to establish that. I will say to Walter that it doesn't matter whether you made the edit late at night or not, you need to check your work after doing so. If this is a one off incident, live and learn. Again, the question is whether or not this is a pattern, which would make it actionable. Your edit summaries, such as "No. You can fix the titles or removed the dead links. Thanks. " do seem to indicate your want to avoid the responsibility of using automated tools. It is hard to read that any other way, in fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed restoring something someone has removed from their talk page should never be done unless you're certain it was an accident or mistake, or it's one of the limited cases where WP:OWNTALK disallows removal or maybe in other special cases (e.g. some people ask that you leave an edit summary, if you did not do so and the person removing says they didn't read your comment as they didn't think it was important due to the lack of an edit summary). If you feel that the person still doesn't understand despite the removal, at worst you should post a followup comment without restoring the older comment. There is no point restoring the older comment given that the removal should be taken as a sign it's read and the person has indicated they don't want it on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne and Dennis Brown: OK, it seems I got it rather wrong regarding the talk page comment restoration, I'll take that as learning point. As for Walter Görlitz, I haven't investigated whether there is a pattern - it's happened on at least two articles, but both were before I informed them so it's possible they were not aware (two other editors I left similar messages for were not). The reason I started this thread was their apparent refusal to follow the policy going forwards rather than evidence they have deliberately not been following it to date. However, given that their talk page management regime seems to be to remove postings that are potentially negative it might be worth looking to see if this is or isn't the first time someone has commented about this or similar to them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thought, there's no need to refer to me in the third person. I am not royalty. I am a person. A male, to be specific. If you want to discuss things with me, as you would with any other human, go ahead and discuss. Yes, I remove attacks from my talk page (and other inappropriately placed comments). I don't like editors ignoring the talk page edit notice, and I respond by reverting those comments too. Your comment was fine, but I read what you wrote and there wasn't anything for me to do on the article so I removed it.

Further, I plan not use that tool because it's not worth the problems it might cause you and others like you. Going forward, I plan to tag articles that have bare URLs instead unless I know they were recently added and should resolve.

I'm not sure if you've bothered to talk to the maintainers of that tool, as they could probably fix this problem. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to close without action as there wasn't a showing of a larger pattern with ignoring errors introduced with the automated tools. Looks like things have cooled down, some lessons learned, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that's fair as Walter has indicated that he doesn't intend to ignore policy going forwards, unlike the impression given from the edit summaries. This can always be revisited should problems occur in future (although I have no basis to assume they will). Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, if we're "summing up", I think it's only fair to add the following: "it seems I got it rather wrong regarding the talk page comment restoration, I'll take that as learning point." - That's good, I hope you do. I'm actually astonished that a sysop, oversighter and ex-arbcom member was unfamiliar with such a basic aspect of talk page interaction - but you've learnt now, so that's encouraging. "I haven't investigated whether there is a pattern" - you're supposed to do that before you drag someone to ANI. Another learning point? "it might be worth looking to see if this is or isn't the first time" Yes, that would have also been a good idea. I mention these things purely because you don't seem to understand that you really aren't in a good position to be attempting to shrug all that off with a dismissive "This can always be revisited should problems occur in future (although I have no basis to assume they will)". If you have no reason to believe it, don't attempt to deflect by saying it. You haven't covered yourself in glory here, in my opinion. -- Begoon 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Begoon: Your latter points are all apparently assuming I brought this here because of past actions. I explicitly did not - I brought this here because his responses to my posts on his talk page indicated that he was not going to follow a core part of the policy regarding automation in the future ("No. You can fix [these issues]."). If someone says "I'm not going to follow this policy" and appears to reject any possibility of discussion ("go away") then I'm not sure what other course of action is appropriate than bringing this to the attention of uninvolved administrators at this board. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, honestly, I think that's open to interpretation. The second summary doesn't say he won't follow policy, it says you already fixed it, and I understand the policy, so stop nagging me, as I read it. Frankly, your "warning" does come across as very officious and rather unfriendly, and your approach might have pissed me off too. I do take your point that you interpreted the response differently. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I still maintain that you are not blameless here and it does leave something of a bad taste in my mouth when you end with the statement you did, in the way that you did. Anyway, I'm not helping to de-escalate this, and I've said my piece, so I'll not add any more. My apologies if you think I was too hard on you. -- Begoon 17:28, 19 February 2018 (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.

Many non-admin AfD closures by User:Jdcomix

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, folks. I'm not looking to see any sanctions imposed against User:Jdcomix, but I think it might be helpful if an administrator had a brief discussion with them.

A short while ago, I noticed that Jdcomix did about 40 non-admin AfD relists or closures in the space of about ten minutes. I objected to one of the re-listings, and opened a discussion with them on their Talk page (User talk:Jdcomix#relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen). Shortly thereafter, two other users posted similar concerns about other non-admin actions at AfD. But just a few minutes ago, I saw that Jdcomix returned to these fast-paced actions, doing about another 40 AfD re-lists or closures, again in the space of about ten minutes. This strikes me as just too fast a pace to be properly assessing the discussions.

As I said at the outset, I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix. But if any administrator agrees that they are doing too many of these in too short a time, I ask that they discuss it with Jdcomix.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to slow down, I can absolutely do that, so I appreciate the feedback. As I say on my user page, I'm willing to be smacked with a trout if need be. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Are the closures themelves disputed, or just the non-admin nature of them? I'd agree that Jdcomix needs to take good care when closing AfDs, but if their closures are consistently undisputed I don't see the issue with taking them off the admins' plates. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 02:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: Thanks for commenting. Because I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix, I didn't analyze the approximately 80 discussions that were closed in the combined space of about twenty minutes. But at an average of fifteen seconds per discussion, I don't see how it is humanly possible to give them anything approaching a proper analysis. And this raises the question of how many of their "keep" decisions are really justified. But aside from the sheer speed of these decisions, there is the equally-concerning question of whether Jdcomix is conforming their decisions to policy. In my discussion on their Talk page, I was told that policy calls for relisting a discussion whenever consensus has not been demonstrated. But this simply isn't true, at least not in general. For discussions that receive virtually no participation, administrators are empowered to close as "soft delete". But Jdcomix's fast-paced relisting of such discussions effectively removes (or delays) that option. Another broad exception (and the one that raised my concerns on Jdcomix's Talk page) is for discussions that have seen substantive policy-based arguments on both sides of the issue. My reading of WP:RELIST suggests that these discussions should not be relisted, but instead should be closed (by an administrator, if the issue is controversial).

And so, to answer your question, yes -- some of the closures are being disputed. But on top of that, there are serious questions as to whether Jdcomix can possibly be doing quality work at such a fast pace. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: In that case, I suggest Jdcomix is simply advised to take more care. As another user mentioned, dealing with problematic NACs is like whac-a-mole; This user seems earnest and is definitely capable of good closures, so good closures should be encouraged. If the closures are disruptive then we should look into it more, but for now? I honestly don't see a good reason to. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have arrived here via their talk page, where I was going to question why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska) needed a second relist, and saw the notification of this thread. There’s no way you could correctly determine the correct course of action in 40 AFDs in ten minutes, as indicated by all the objections surfacing on the users’ talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I also questioned a closure of an AfD on their talk page. Jdcomix stood by his/her closure, so I took it too DRV. Only after taking to DRV did Jdcomix choose to relist the discussion admitting they confused it with another article. Obviously these closures/relistings are being done too quickly and with little thought. I also am not looking for sanctions, but would like to see Jdcomix voluntarily agree to not make non-admin closures/relistings again in the future.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. It's like Whac-A-Mole; stop one person from doing NACs and/or relistings (or promote them, in some cases, if they're doing it right) and you'll just get others rushing to fill in the void. Yes, Jdcomix is doing these way too fast and should stop, but he's not the first, and certainly won't be the last. Is there anything we can do so that we're not here again with someone else in another few months? (for anyone keeping count the last AN/I discussion about someone doing this was in December, and there have been many talk page discussions with serial relisters in the past few months; I have several names in mind but I won't single anyone out). ansh666 09:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Bezanson (2 Deletes, 1 Redirect, 1 Keep by a co-founder of the company, and 1 Keep by article creator) should've been closed (as no consensus) by a non-admin (after what appears to be less than a 1 minute review based on prior edits). No consensus might've been the right call - but it should've been decided by an admin.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I relisted non-controversial discussions without a clear consensus (the last one I relisted had a bunch of keep votes, but almost all of them came from sockpuppet accounts of the same person). Jdcomix (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Proposal for six-month ban. I know that I've repeatedly stated that I was not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix. But about half an hour ago, Jdcomix logged back in to Wikipedia and the very first thing they did was to re-list eleven more AfD discussions in the space of about four minutes. I take this as evidence that Jdcomix has no intention of ever ceasing these rapid-fire administrative actions. And so, I propose that Jdcomix be banned from performing any further closures or re-lists at Articles for Discussion, with such ban lasting for six months.

  On a somewhat related note -- @Jdcomix: would you care to respond here to the message I left on your Talk page last night? As I noted in that message, merely removing the re-list notice from the discussion does not actually undo the re-listing. (To undo the re-listing, you also have to undo the changes that were made to the daily logs.) If your intention really was to undo the re-listing, do you intend to actually do it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the relists were disruptive though? That's why I didn't close anything. I merely relisted non-controversial discussions that the admins didn't have to work with. They're already busy, I just wanted to help out a bit. Jdcomix (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, did the thing you mentioned on my talk page, too. Jdcomix (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. For the record, this posting is being made after Hijiri's posting. As we wait for others to comment on my proposal, I think it will be helpful to point out three specific concerns.

First, I thank you for completing the task of actually undoing the re-listing. But to echo a concern raised above by Rusf10, you didn't complete that task in response to my earlier message on your Talk page -- you did so in response to my complaint about it here on this noticeboard. Non-admins who decide to perform admin-like actions are expected to hold themselves to the same standards of accountability as are administrators. And yet, you seem to be displaying a pattern of not admitting or correcting errors until someone complains at a higher level.

Second, I made my proposal for sanctions only after seeing that you had performed a third session of rapid-fire re-lists. What happened to yesterday's statement that you were willing to slow down? Perhaps it was not your intention, but I think you've done some serious damage to your credibility.

And finally, it might be helpful to the others to add some background information. Yesterday and today, you've taken administrative action in about 90 AfD's, doing so in a period of time that collectively adds up to only about 25 minutes. In contrast, in the three years that you've been here at Wikipedia, you have participated in only about 60 AfD's. And that's a striking contrast -- in less than half an hour, you've taken administrative actions in more AfD cases than you've actually participated in over the past three years! And what of the five articles that you've nominated for deletion at AfD? One was withdrawn by you the same day you nominated it, after immediate "speedy keep" opposition arose. And for the other four, two were closed as "keep" and two were closed as "merge". The fact is, you have never once succeeded in getting the community to delete one of your nominated articles. This is troubling, because it makes it difficult for us to believe that you can accurately assess the quality of arguments made in an AfD discussion, and it makes it almost impossible to believe that you can do this at the rate of fifteen seconds per discussion.

I don't dispute Alfie's contention that you are a well-meaning editor who is trying to help. But I think this is one area for which you are not well-suited. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban, preferably as long as possible I don't know why non-admins are allowed close AFDs. There are already fora that exist exclusively to canvass keep !votes; having the majority of closers technically unable to close as "delete" just makes the problem worse; this shouldn't even be allowed for anyone, except in clear, unambiguous SNOW cases. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am extremely concerned that Jdcomix's AfS stats] show that the have only !voted in eleven AfD's of which their !vote matched the outcome 66% of the time. Worse, AfD stats shows they have edited 273 AfD pages so they look to have closed/relisted 262. I recognize that they are doing these closes in good faith but they simply do not, in my opinion, have the experience needed to know what is non-controversial and what is not.

  I do not want to see a ban imposed but I would like to them stop closing/relisting for a while and !vote. Every one of the AfDs that they closed that I looked at would have benefited more from a well considered !vote than from a relist. Jbh ^Talk 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban from closing/relisting AfDs. I originally said no sanctions, but given the continued behavior, this needs to stop. I'm not saying the closures were in bad faith, but it is disruptive. I actually think non-admin closures should not be an option in almost all cases for AfD (the exception being when someone withdraws their own nomination).--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to change policy, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Non-admin closure of AfD--Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is currently going down in flames, and is extremely unlikely to succeed. Best not to try to make policy based on a couple of bad eggs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So it seems, but I thought it was worth discussing. Maybe ansh666's alternate proposal (at the same thread) will gain more traction.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• A different proposal perhaps Jdcomix could agree not to re-list/close any AfDs until they make 50 AfD !votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose ban I'm uncomfortable with the immediate jump to "ban the user from closing AfDs for as long as possible!!", and to be honest I'm uncomfortable with the implication that established users should not be able to close AfDs. That said, Jdcomix, firing up XFDCloser whilst this discussion was ongoing was not a particularly smart idea and does put your position here in jeopardy, and you really ought to stop until this discussion is closed (lest a more formal temporary restriction has to be imposed). I don't like bringing up AfD stats (I think "going against the grain" when needed is a good quality in an editor), but 11 AfD !votes versus 262 closes? My good faith starts to wane at that point. I champion new, enthusiastic editors, but... You need to do better, or you might find yourself here again, and I for one will not be as willing to give you another chance. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie: Not going to try to expand on my rationale more than I have beyond saying that editors with a vested interest in closing one way (or rather, a technical limitation on closing the other) should not be closing except in clear-cut cases (and fifteen seconds is not enough time to determine if a case is clear-cut). But when you quote someone (especially using quotation marks), please refrain from adding exclamation marks and removing words and phrases that soften and provide nuance like "perhaps", "I believe", "probably", or in this case "preferably". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

EC'd with Power~enwiki so I didn't see their proposal until after I hit "publish". I support their proposal: Whilst I'm not usually a fan of solving "people" problems with restrictions, it seems like this is a good compromise for all parties involved. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Power's proposal as target of potential ban/sanctions - Not sure if this is supposed to be valid or not, but I would be willing to abide by the suggestion Power suggested. Jdcomix (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any sancctio s or effort to restrict qualified users from closing discussions. That said this user should participate in far more AfDs before closing or relisting any more. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Observation from OP. There's something troubling about Jdcomix's support of Power-enwiki's proposal. Jbhunley's estimate of 11 votes and 262 relists/closures is based on a quirk in the AfD stat counter -- if you don't specify a specific number of AfD's to look at, the counter assumes you want to look at 200 at a time. So, the report that Jbhunley saw was saying only that there were 11 votes out of the last 200 AfD's in which Jdcomix was involved. But this covers the period during which Jdcomix was engaged in their rapid-fire relists/closings. If you take a look at the entirety of the AfD history (as seen here), you can see that there have been 56 votes in 275 AfD's. And that's what I find troubling. Jdcomix must already know that they've voted in far more than 11 AfD's. And I suspect they already knew that the number was greater than 50. So what are we to make of the fact that Jdcomix is "willing to abide by" a restriction that, in fact, is no restriction at all? And this agreement is coming from a person who already offered to slow down on the relists, only to renege on that offer within a single day. I continue to think that some time-based topic ban is warranted. If my proposal of six months seems too long to some of the commenters (although it doesn't seem long to me), perhaps a three-month ban will be more acceptable. But Jdcomix's actions suggest that there does need to be a substantive amount of time during which Jdcomix takes a break from re-listing AfD discussions, hopefully using that time to become familiar with the guidelines under WP:RELIST. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with a 3 month ban or 6 month ban, it'll give me time to participate in discussions, nominate articles, and become familiar with policies. Thanks for being so helpful :) Jdcomix (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Yes, that does look like an attempt to gotcha power-enwiki's proposal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, this needs to stop. Looking over Jdcomix's contribution history, between 20:15 and 20:22 on February 17th, he performed 110 edits. That's a about one edit every 4 seconds for 7 straight minutes. There's no way he was doing anything other than clicking as fast as the U/I could keep up. If it's not outright vandalism, it's certainly not constructive. I've imposed a 24 hour block just to get things under control and prevent further damage until ANI can figure out what a better long-term solution is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

PS, I'd support an indef topic ban on relisting or closing any XfD's. We bend over backwards to implement, anyone can edit almost every page, but the goal there is to allow the free exchange of information. If the cost of that is putting up with some low-quality edits, that's a cost we're happy to pay. But, that needn't extend to administrative actions. We're not so hard up for people willing to administer XfD that we need to risk further disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, each time you relist something using XFDcloser, you end up with three entries in your contribution history (the AfD page itself, the previous daylog, and the new daylog). But, still, it's hard to believe that even at 1/3rd the originally computed close rate, any significant thought could be brought to bear on any one. And, the number of them that have been brought to WP:DRV bears that out. So, it's still a problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indefinite topic ban. NACs are useful if done right and following policy. They are disruptive when they are done in a way that leaves no time to actually assess the discussions and I agree with power above that apparently this user does not actually have any experience participating in AFDs. In those few discussions he participated in, his comments are mainly limited to WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:PERX !votes. So I think he should be kept from closing AFDs as long as he has not demonstrated that he understands such discussions and one way to do so is to participate in AFDs in a substantial way. That's why such a ban should be indefinite. Once he has demonstrated clue and more importantly stopped mass actions, he can be un-topicbanned. As an alternative, if topic banning finds no consensus, how about limiting him to making only one NAC/relist every 5 minutes? That might be helpful too, alas not as helpful as a topic ban. Regards SOWHY 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban Their contribution history shows inappropriatly fast closing after they were asked to stop repeatedly. I would also support a two week block for disruptive editing if they do another spurt of fast NACs/relists before this closes. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from all NACs/relists. Persisting in whirlwind closures/relists during this discussion, to the point where RoySmith had to stop them with a 24-hour block, is very unpromising behavior. Also, nobody should make any kinds of edits as fast as Jdcomix's contributions history indicates, so perhaps a topic ban from lightning editing of any kind should be considered — best, a voluntary, self-imposed such ban, now that they're blocked and have some time to reflect. Whether or not they're running an unauthorized bot, there's no way such superspeedy editing can be done with any care. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban. This person clearly lacks the competence or will to do these correctly. Sandstein 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for closing and relisting XfDs. Continued disruption while that disruption is under discussion is never okay. ansh666 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban—hell, I spend 20 minutes !voting in an AfD. A topic ban now may salvage this editor before misapprehension of how Wikipedia works (or doesn't) on their part requires much more limiting sanctions. — Neonorange (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD closing/relisting ban Not sure about the period though. The user continued his behaviour while the same was being discussed here. That makes me lean towards indef. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Can an admin close this discussion and indef topic ban me from closing/relisting AfDs? The consensus is pretty clear that I screwed up and I'm fine with the ban, so I think the thread has probably run its course. Jdcomix (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. Swarm ♠ 20:14, 20 February 2018 (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_talk:Xinjao#unblock_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've never done this before, so I hope I am doing it right. Xinjao was blocked yesterday as the result of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR,_editor_frequently_calling_constructive_edits_a_"vandalism". I thought it best to post it here.

NOTE: adding PERMALINK TO DISCUSSION AS IT HAS BEEN ARCHIVED. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Dear Administrators.

I do not feel this indef block is reasonable or necessary. In my 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone. I have never been subject to any warnings, blocks or bans in this time either (except this one of course). As someone who has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge. Inevitably disputes arise between users and I have almost always raised my concerns on talk pages or walked away altogether.

Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. I did earlier apologise to User Edward for the very same thing [6], which he appears to have accepted [7]. I will make a note of toning down my messages and be more objective when delivering my points to others.

I will also admit that I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting [8]. This is not meant as an excuse by any means but a little insight into why I was briefly feeling disillusioned and may have assumed bad faith. Once again, This is my issue and I own up to it.

However regarding my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia. Prior to this ANI, nobody else has ever criticised my proficiency in English.

I do feel that a warning would have sufficed as I am a reasonable person and always open to constructive criticism. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks --Xinjao (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure of the procedure here, but I looked a bit at the ANI complaint/debate above, and the infef block seems way excessive. The user was blocked based on lack of competence, with one of the allegations being that the user does not master English, which is obviously not correct. Another complaint was calling other editors edit for "vandalism" without good reason, which has more merit, but as user has acknowledged this wording is unfortunate, and doesn't seem to have been warned for it before, it should hardly merit an indef block. There were few participants in the discussion, and I suggest it is reopened with more people looking into it. Iselilja (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What about continued false allegations of misconduct, misrepresentation of policies and sources, telling other editors not to copy his comments to ANI without permission, taking up fight with an editor even until his last comment here? Block has been further justified with the fact that Xinjao is not capable to understand that he should not be appealing block before 6 months and better think about the concerns raised about his ethnic POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy decline. It has been less than 24 hours since the block was placed, and the closing statement stated a minimum of 6 months before appeal. If you think the closer evaluated the consensus in that discussion incorrectly, you can appeal that at WP:AN, but it's premature to consider an unblock request. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of thread closers doing this crap. These "no appeals" conditions are not binding. They never have been binding. Consensus can change. It can change within minutes of a close. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and thread closures do not have the finality that judicial judgments do. Even then, appeals in fact should come very quickly after a final decision, rather than waiting for the status quo to change. And by "appeal", I'm using the term in its legal sense, rather than the improper sense it tends to be used around here (i.e., to describe a WP:SO request). This is not a request for sanctions to be lifted, it is a challenge to the propriety of the sanction and the discussion that led to the sanction. Thus, no, this should not be speedily closed. These sorts of threads, in fact, should never be speedily closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So... you're "sick and tired" of Wikipedia being considered to be a court of law, but you want us to consider "appeals" just as they are "in its legal sense". Seems a bit contradictory to me.

In any case, admins have the authority to impose conditions on blocks, just as they have the authority to impose conditions on unblocks. That's not in question here, so your comments are pretty irrelevant. What's relevant is that an admin has brought their block here to be examined and to get community feedback on it. Other issues just confuse matters: let's focus on what's actually in front of us - was it a good block (conditions and all) or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're getting at. I think you've misread my comment. I suggest you re-read it and try to understand the difference between an appeal and what admins are trying to do when they say "no appeals for six months". They do not have the authority to foreclose challenges to their decisions, which is what Tazerdadog and yourself appear to believe it means. I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a court of law, and consensus can change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally there are two things that could be "appealed" here. The first is that the closer's interpretation of consensus in the above thread that resulted in an unappealable block was inaccurate. I have no comment on the merits of such a discussion beyond observing that the proper venue for it is WP:AN. The second thing that could theoretically be appealed is the block itself, arguing that it was no longer necessary and that they could contribute positively. I assumed that we were having that discussion because it was formatted as an unblock request, instead of a closure challenge, and it was occurring at ANI instead of AN. Until the 6 months has elapsed or the closure is successfully challenged, this type of appeal was foreclosed by the closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And with all due respect, I am also arguing that it is improper and outside the discretion of any administrator, let alone any purported consensus at ANI, to automatically foreclose any discussion before there has been disruption. Xinjao may absolutely argue at any time that the restrictions are no longer necessary due to changed circumstances. It is the height of byzantine bureaucracy to automatically foreclose discussion simply because it'll have the same outcome. Administrators' interpretations of a discussion's consensus do not have the force of law, and are not final judgments. They are merely interpretations of consensus, and in this case it was enforced by a block.

Once again, no administrator has the authority to command the community not to hold a discussion as to whether a set of sanctions are still necessary. And no consensus at ANI can purport to override a consensus that would come later in time on these same noticeboards. If, however, Xinjao were somehow not permitted personally to request the sanctions be lifted, I am now requesting that same relief be given to Xinjao on the grounds that the sanctions imposed are unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive, punitive, and ineffective. This is independent of any request Xinjao may have made that might be disallowed by the closing admin's directive, though I continue to argue that such directives constitute abuses of discretion and should be disregarded by default. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating two things. Yes, an admin cannot prevent the community from discussing whatever it wants to discuss, but an admin can prevent a blocked editor from appealing their block until after a certain time. In this case, the reviewing admin allowed the appeal by bringing here it to the community, so I don't know what the hell you're beefing about. The reviewing admin could have, if they had wanted to, answered the appeal by saying "You have no right of appeal until after X time" and left it at that -- and you would never have heard of this case. That they brought it here is to their credit. That you chose to use this discussion it as a platform for your policy preferences is unfortunate, because they have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. and, in fact, are a distraction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn: The discussion above was a clusterfuck. It might just as well have been designed to prevent input from editors unfamiliar with Xinjao or otherwise uninvolved in the dispute, which I'll note is squarely an WP:ARBIPA dispute. One thing I notice in just an initial glance is how unfamiliar all the names are. While I usually feel it's a good thing to get new blood on these boards, when virtually none of the ANI regulars comment on a block proposal that's been open for nearly a week, there's something wrong. And when most of the discussion participants—by byte count, virtually the entire discussion—are people who mostly edit in a topic area covered by a discretionary sanctions regime, you have to analyze the consensus very carefully. This is honestly a case that should've just been kicked to AE and handled by them. Instead we've got what very well may be a content dispute that's been couched in behavioral terms with an ANI mob trying to drive Xinjao away.
  That said, the thread itself is so impenetrable that I cannot form an opinion on the propriety of any sanction, or whether Xinjao is blameless for that matter. Thus, I recommend that this entire dispute be kicked to WP:AE so that the need for sanctions may be evaluated in a structured manner, less prone to being rendered impenetrable by walls of text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• How does AE have jurisdiction here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• As I said, it's an ARBIPA dispute primarily between people who edit in the IPA topic area and should be handled within the scope of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)\

• This was a WP:CIR block, not a Discretionary Sanctions block. AE has absolutely no jurisdiction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural decline. Xinjao was told not to appeal before 6 months. 300 bad edits in 11 years is why he is blocked for being this incompetent. He was still using Wikipedia for his battles and probably socking per this SPI. This was a community decision and WP:AE can't do anything. Lorstaking (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No admin can foreclose challenges to the legitimacy of his or her blocks or the assessment of consensus, or to the underlying community discussion (whether or not there was an apparent consensus in the discussion to prevent such challenges). There are no grounds for a "procedural" decline here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's done on WP:AN after having discussion with the admin in question. This was a very easy decision and seems impossible to overturn. Per this unblock request, the incompetent WP:NOTHERE editor believes he did nothing wrong and he was framed, still he can resort with a warning just to make you feel happy but otherwise he is perfect. Dlohcierekim should have revoked talk page and urged the editor to appeal to UTRS for gaining talk page access after 6 months. There was no need to post a deceptive unblock request here. Lorstaking (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn: I'm willing to assume good faith here. The user knows that their edits will be closely watched, and I'm willing to give them another chance of proving that they can be a net-positive to the project. However, any disruption caused by them should result with indef block. Also, I see no relevance of Procedural decline - yes, the used did make an unblock request (much) sooner than defined - however, if the community acknowledges the sanctions as too harsh, it would be in the project's best interest to overturn them. byteflush _Talk 07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: AGF is not a suicide pact. We don't have to waste time on this WP:NOTHERE editor who was probably socking during the indef block proposal. A deceptive unblock request is not convincing at all since he rejects any mistakes and thinks he is just framed. Lorstaking (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: I intentionally didn't link to the AGF page since I didn't want my message interpreted as a policy/essay view on the unblock request, or perhaps as an attack on those who favor the block. Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. -- I think the user realized what they did wrong and are willing to change their ways. Of course, the community should keep a close eye on their contribs, but right now I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Though, the SPI check may shed more light on this, so maybe we should wait for the CU. Or perhaps ask the user to acknowledge any socking done in the past on their talk page. byteflush _Talk 07:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: you need to have a closer look.

"I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone" he has been doing this for long, deliberately calling others edits a vandalism and it took an admin to make him realize that this is a personal attack.

"has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge" by engaging in ethnic and nationalist POV pushing.

"I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting" still not dropping stick regarding months old SPI[278] and using it as excuse for disruption.

"my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia." This is a joke because he is misrepresenting sources, policies, others edits all the time due to his inability to understand English. And others can't understand what he is saying per his own comment.[279]

"I do feel that a warning would have sufficed": some more of his deception. Capitals00 had proposed "a final warning" but Xinjao called it a "lot of baseless accusations" and resorted to false allegations, misrepresentation of sources to justify his disruption.

No where he addressed his ethnic POV pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battleground mentality and other reasons why he is indeffed. Instead you need to think if siteban is warranted at this stage. I think revoking talk page access will work and an appeal to UTRS after 6 months or 1 year would allow him to access talk page. Lorstaking (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Thank you for you view on those. I'm not saying they're not a problematic editor - they are, but I just think an indef with a minimum of 6 months seems too harsh in this case. I have to agree - overall, it's been a net-negative, and the user should've abided by warnings left on their talk page. However, sometimes only a 48 hour block is enough to stir things up in the users mind and they realize that actions have consequences -- which is precisely what I think might happen to this editor. Most of your points stand, however it is clear that we have someone who hasn't managed to make a distinction between vandalism, disruptive editing and (N)POV. I think this might have gave them an idea what is expected of them, and what is forbidden. How about we decline the current unblock request and ask the user to explain, in their own words, what led to the current block, what they are going to change about their activity here and how they plan to edit Wikipedia in the future? Without waiting for the mandatory six months.

Edit: of course, only after the CU. If they are socking, that's a different story. byteflush _Talk 08:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the problem is that it seems clear they still have very little idea of what's expected of them when they're very unblock request being discussed here says they have never "I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone" when they were blocked at least in part because they repeatedly accused people of vandalism when it's clear, by their own admission, vandalism as we define it, was not involved. I would add I did notice the thread when it had only a few posts and thought it was another example of clearly incorrect accusation of vandalism. I didn't bother to say anything since it was so long and frankly I'm always bored of people saying something is vandalism when it clearly isn't, and also that was before the ban proposal. I haven't look into the details enough to say whether I would have supported an indef with a 6 month minimum appeal but I have to say I'm hard pressed to support an unblock request when it seems clear that the person request still lacks the most basic undestand of standards of behaviour expected here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to waste any more time on this. The block review took even more time than watching the user's future contribs would have. However, I want to make this clear - I do not support the unblock until CU results (I really don't know how I missed that SPI was in progress). If CU is clean, we could discuss alternatives. Meanwhile, the user could use some WP:ROPE - how about an admin asking them of their "secondary" accounts?

Edit: Well, nevermind, I asked them to disclose those: [280] byteflush _Talk 08:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Increase appeal time to 1 year for failing WP:NOTTHEM and making a misleading request. Deliberately bringing up my false block to evade major concerns about his incompetence and disruption[281] even after getting indeffed. [282] Raymond3023 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline current request, mostly per Raymond3023 (talk · contribs), Lorstaking (talk · contribs), failure to address all issues pertaining to current block, and awaiting CU. However, I'm still against mandatory 6 months Wikibreak. byteflush _Talk 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The WP:CIR problem is real and valid. The user shows no understanding of the vandalism issue, despite all that happened. They can wait for the standard offer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn, primarily because the user had a clean log which shows no previous sanctions. The appeal and underlying issues should be looked at their own merit, without prejudice, and a warning or lesser sanction would've have sufficed for this time at least. As the user has indicated, they are open to feedback on their editing, so there should be some WP:AGF afforded. An indefinite block with no prior history is punitive and unprecedented for this topic area, AFAIK. Also, as someone has pointed out and as I relayed previously, much of that ANI discussion was an absolute farce and had little neutral involvement. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocker's comments: Interpreting the discussion on the top, I saw a consensus to indefinitely block this user for failing WP:CIR. This user has been blocked accordingly and per WP:SO, place a 6 month wait on the appeal time since it was a community placed block, as any appeal made before then is unlikely to be granted. As Mendaliv points out, this however doesn't mean my close can't be challenged. If it turns out my close was improper, I will be more than happy to reverse my actions.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with "community placed block(s)" is that often the "community" is a group of friends of the complainant, or a group of enemies of the editor being blocked. It is the fundamental flaw of this system. Sanctions should not be imposed based on votes by a non-neutral pool of editors, but on a review of the evidence submitted by them. Your closure did not indicate that you did that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • When an editor is being discussed, evidence is presented yes, and an admin acts on the evidence, when the discussion turns into a sanctions proposal, community consensus must be considered. I see no evidence that all parties that participated are non-neutral. With that being said I stand by my close until I see that the community does not.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Like I said, that is the fundamental flaw of the process. Saying that sanctions proposals should depend upon community consensus is, frankly, horrifying. What that leads to is popular editors never receiving sanctions no matter how egregious their behavior, and editors that are not well-liked receiving harsh sanctions for often lesser infractions. Decisions to impose sanctions should be based on a documented review of the evidence presented, not a vote count. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling you out for following the process, I'm just saying the process is off the rails. There should be two-tiered decisions here: 1) that sanctions are warranted based on evidence presented and 2) The sanctions imposed are based on consideration of a combination of past transgressions and the seriousness of the present transgression. Making decisions based on "community consensus" is basically bowing to mob mentality. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • And then you will criticize the closure for having participation from the editors who didn't know the incompetent ethnic POV pusher enough. Such a thought is itself flawed. You can use village pump if you want to change the fundamentals and probably request making of a new userright called "ANI reviewer" but still that wouldn't have changed result of this report it would be same or harsher. FWIW, closure was still highly valid. Enough editors participated who never interacted him. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Herein lies another flaw in the system. The editor was not blocked for "ethnic POV pushing". He/she was blocked for lack of competency. You seem to be angry at him/her for POV pushing, but went after him/her on competency issues. If he/she was blocked for the wrong reason, it should be undone, and a new ANI opened that provides evidence of POV pushing. My quick perusal of the original ANI looks like it just went off the rails quickly. If he/she is POV pushing, there should be a concise statement of what you feel his/her POV is, and provide evidence of what the editor is doing to promote that POV to the detriment of the neutrality of the article. He/she should have the opportunity to refute what may be an incorrect assumption on your part of his/her POV. If he/she is trying to characterize good faith edits as "vandalism" not because he doesn't understand what vandalism actually is but to justify pushing his POV, that's the issue that should be be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs)
            • 90% of the POV-pushing editors get blocked for something much more basic and tangible. There is nothing unusual about that. I don't see the point of this line of reasoning. The user has been calling ordinary edits "vandalism" for a long time, and he never desisted from doing so. When the issue was raised, he didn't say, "yup, I am wrong. I will back off". Instead he came back with more assaults on his opponents. This kind of visible battleground behaviour is how people often get caught. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Well, how can you expect to have an effective appeal decision when the reason for the block is inaccurate? There is nothing in the appeal that talks about POV. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
                • CIR is how we describe all those issues as. That's how block reason is accurate. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
                • The reason for the block was indeed stated accurately in the close of the earlier thread as well as in block notice. You are probably reacting to Lorstaking's outburst above (which I am choosing to ignore, by the way). Reason for overturning the block would be that the charge of WP:CIR was indeed false and the commenters in the earlier thread assessed it wrongly, or that the user demonstrates that he has acquired the needed competence (which would be miraculous if it happened in the 7 hours he took to file an appeal). I don't believe either if that is the case here. Some people feel that an indef block is too harsh for the charge, and I would probably agree. But what is done is done. The road forward is for Xinjao to acquire the needed competence and then file an appeal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So we have now circled back to Mendaliev's original objection, which is the treatment of a closure by an admin must be considered irrevocable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: In order to be deemed neutral, being un-involved is a good start. And therein lies the problem. Mar4d (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Nonsense. You are telling like there was mass support from uninvolved editors for Xinjao's disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Mar4d and Lynn (SLW): So let's take a look at who is (un)involved here:

  • Lorstaking - OP - Involved - Proposed block
  • Robert McClenon - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Xinjao - target - Involved - Opposed block
  • EdwardElric2016 - Involved - Supported block
  • MBlaze Lightning - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Power~enwiki - Uninvolved - Supports a TBAN
  • Nick Thorne - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Capitals00 - Involved - Supported block
  • Mar4d - Uninvolved - Opposed block
  • D4iNa4 - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • NadirAli - Involved - Opposed block
  • Raymond3023 - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Störm - Uninvolved - Supported block
  • Emir of aleppo - Uninvolved - Opposed block

  After having done this digging, it seems plenty of uninvolved users commented.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • • It was Mendaliv, not me that expressed concern with whether or not the voting editors were uninvolved. My concern was with process. But, here is another grave concern: Why was OP allowed to propose the sanction? That should clearly be the role of an uninvolved individual. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can propose sanctions as long as they are in good standing, i.e. not topic or interaction banned. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

More proof of a completely dysfunctional process. Sanctions should only be proposed by an uninvolved user, after the transgressions have been clearly defined and proven by evidence. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Decline: Unblock request is just an extension of gross CIR issues with Xinjao. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline the unblock. I had multiple reasons for supporting the block. First, the editor showed a long history of contentious editing, which warranted at least a warning. Second, the editor's comments at WP:ANI were a long angry rant, too long, difficult to read, that showed that they weren't engaging in reason and weren't worth trying to reason with. Third, the editor had started the matter by yelling "Vandalism" to win a content dispute. The vandalism policy has always said that the allegation of vandalism when there is no vandalism is a personal attack. I think that empty allegations of vandalism should be sanctioned more often. If they had waited a month and then requested unblock, I would be inclined to think that the six-month block was too severe, and at least to consider the request. As it is, they clearly don't get it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn this ban Complainant Lorstaking failed to mediate disputes as per policyWikipedia:Disruptive editing, jumped the gun on ANI and is generally a very vindictive person who is treating ANI page as his person battleground. 20 minutes after I had opposed the initial ban, Lorstaking started a sock investigation (now closed without action) against myself and User:Xinjao. Here: [283], with a colourful conspiracy thats worth reading. I agree with User:Iselilja, User:Mendaliv, User: byteflush, User:Mar4d, User:LynnWysong in the excessive and improper nature of the earlier proceedings. (Mob mentality) --Emir of aleppo (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To editor Cyberpower678: since I was mentioned in the ANI, I just want to clarify that the list of users you brought forward did not necessarily consist of users "uninvolved" in the issue with user:D4iNa4, MBlazeLightening being examples. Many of the users are involved in this same topic area and share an opposing viewpoint to the blockee, using the ANI as an opportunity to silence his opposition. On the mention of users such as D4iNa4 and others, I was upset by the off-topic mudslinging hurled at me and Mar4d that went unchecked, with one or two of them calling for mine and Mar4d's future edits to be watched carefully. I interpret this as open calls for WP:HOUNDING by trailing after editors with which they share opposing viewpoints. As an administrator you should be aware that trailing after one editor by another editor or group of editors; especially with the intent of trying to confront them and attack their contributions is not permitted under policy. Such action is only permissible to administrators and other bureaucrats under certain conditions and cirucmstances; especially when parole sanctions have been implemented against a user by orders of the arbitration committee.

I was also accused of being a supporter of the blockee on the previous ANI and reviewed the very recent CU against Xanjao. In that CU, he was quoted as making a comment that there is no bridge between Hindi and Urdu. Anyone familiar with my editing history knows that I do not share the same viewpoint. The fact is that both Hindi and Urdu are passed off as "languages" when they are simply two distinct registers of the same Hindustani language. That is the factual scientific verdict on the Hindi-Urdu controversy and had this editor encountered me while making edits to the contrary as expressed in his comments, there would have likely have been an edit war between us. But of course his opponents on the previous ANI tried to portray me differently and celebrated my previous ban (a ban that was met by differing opinions), when a few of them such as D4iNa4 were themselves site banned. I just wish for you and other administrators to make a note of all this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still deceiving others for a NOTHERE editor? You were sitebanned, not D4iNa4 or any "few of them". Just like Xinjao, you have much CIR issues and you should do something about them than thinking about others who are far more competent than you. Capitals00 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Decline for now. Of the various block/unblock discussions I've and/or been party to, this is quite a difficult one. On one hand, we have an editor who has been around a long time, albeit with a low edit count, who hasn't been previously blocked. There is also the oddity in terms of English competence. They obviously have the ability to construct grammatically correct English sentences, to the point that I would say it hovers at between professional and native level. And yet, there seems to be a problem in parsing the subtleties of communication. On the other hand, as Robert McClenon says above, there is the contentiousness and accusations of vandalism. WP is a collaborative effort and repeated baseless accusations, plus refusing to see others' perspective, especially when consensus does not support your argument, do little to help that effort. Blackmane (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, largely due to the language problem. I think the close called this correctly, but it's clearly tricky and I could probably be persuaded if a suitable mentor came forward. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, while there were more involved editors than in Cyberpower's math, there was (just) enough consensus to support this, and I don't see the key issues being addressed in the appeal. The claim that Lorstaking or other editors are also at fault isn't a defense here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline because of his continued deception and dishonesty. —MBL ^Talk 06:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note, Dlohcierekim, please always provide permanent links to ANI discussions, as this is a very dynamic page. Your link at the top of this section to the original discussion is already dead, which makes it harder to assess the appeal. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 19 February 2018 (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.

Category: Requests for unblock

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

---

I don't know if ANI is the right place for this, but, there seems to be some kind of a backlog at Category: Requests for unblock, with some unblock requests pending for as long as 10(!) days. Some admin may wanna look into this.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, backlogs are usually reported at WP:AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFU is pretty consistently backlogged. The oldest today is only 13 days. Seeing 20+ days is not out of the ordinary on the tail end. Also just as an FYI. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and TonyBallioni: oh, ok. Thanks for informing, would keep that in mind the next time I report a backlog.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Page moves by MonarchyLover

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.

---

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

This new user has made multiple possibly-contentious moves in the past few days, including King Simeon II of Bulgaria (multiple previous RMs), Princess Margareta of Romania (reverted), and Francis, Duke of Cádiz. Based on their username, I doubt they can be neutral regarding these moves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at their contrib log is indeed showing a lot of unilateral page moves. I have two thoughts on this. First is that many of these moves may be contentious. I haven't had a chance to look into their rationals but monarchists are notorious for arguing over titles and styles. So some of these may run afoul of NPOV. Secondly I am wondering at a brand new editor with only slightly over 130 edits doing a bunch of page moves. I don't remember when I figured out how to move pages but I am pretty sure it was not less than 6 weeks and 150 edits into my tenure here. File that under things that make me say "Hmmm..." -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I also note that they have not responded to any of the numerous notes and warnings left on their talk page. That is not encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My 12+ years of Wiki experience, tells me that we're dealing with a likely evading sock. -- GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours. Looking at MonarchyLover's talkpage with all the ignored warnings, I thought at first it might be one of those cases where the user isn't aware that they have a talkpage (which would have somewhat contradicted GoodDay's theory). But I was wrong; they have edited their talk, once, but only in order to remove warnings from it.[284] That's not promising. Nor is the fact that they haven't, ever, used an edit summary, though exhorted to here. DrKay has been extremely patient with this user, but I think it's time for a block. Unfortunately some users are quite unimpressed by warnings/advice, and only take notice of blocks, and I'm sorry to say this looks like such a case. This undiscussed move today is the last straw. (power~enwiki, please remember you're supposed to alert users when you take them to ANI. But I suppose it's kind of moot by now.) Bishonen | talk 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
  • I did [285]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, power~enwiki, I don't know how I missed it. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 20 February 2018 (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:Patricia CV has four years of warnings for adding unsourced material, sockpuppetry and is still doing this

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 Patricia CV (formerly known as Ross Lynch Lovers) has a long pattern of adding unsourced genres and material; they have been warned as far back as 2014 (including countless final warnings) by users including SNUGGUMS and most recently, Interlude65 (for just a selection, see [286], [287], [288], [289], [290] all the way back to 2014). They've recently been up to this again. They change genres or edit against established consensus on what something is, then they get annoyed and throw accusations out (which Sergecross73 has blocked them twice for—calling me a "donkey", randomly claiming I'm "xenophobic", claiming without any basis that I treat all women on Wikipedia as "dumb"). Now the accusations haven't happened in this case again (yet, at least), but they're continuing to genre war when they're quite well aware the sources on the articles state something different:

• Removing sourced genres for their own idea of what something is
• changing a genre when the source states something different right next to it
• changing a genre stated in the second sentence of the lead as dance-pop.

They have also used multiple IP addresses:

• I reverted them for contradicting what sources state on L.A. State of Mind and I did a few follow-ups to clear the article of unsourced genre claims here, then they used 2804:90:11:5C47:D40B:8DFA:3D02:EF00 to restore their opinion here. The other articles that the IP edited are all articles Patricia CV has edited extensively.
• Loriendrew warned them about using IPs again in November 2017 while they were blocked here. They used 2601:84:4501:8003:E407:FBF9:8104:2DF2.

More recently they have changed releases sourced as albums to mixtapes on Meghan Trainor discography and downgrading singles sourced as having full commercial releases to "promotional" here and here (and then editing the related articles to match: [291], [292], [293]). They previously did this on Olivia Newton-John singles discography when they split it off from her albums to a separate page, counting every song that didn't chart as a "promotional single" and sourcing it to Discogs when Discogs doesn't state what is "promotional" anyway (and is not reliable per WP:ALBUMAVOID regardless). Yes, the definition of these things can be confusing and is changing, but Patricia CV's opinion appears to be that if a single doesn't chart (which is entirely possible) it is "promotional". (I warned them about this here.) At this point I don't think they will stop with any of this behaviour. I think it's gone on for far too long, and I and other users (namely SNUGGUMS) have thought about coming here about this user before. I initially wrote a version of this to Sergecross, who suggested I could bring this here, so I have, as this is a pattern going back four years and I'm honestly confused as to how after so many warnings this user is still doing this or even still freely editing. Ss112 15:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To summarize my thoughts:

• I've blocked her twice for personal attacks/bad faith accusations she has refused to explain, defend, or generally respond to.
• Ss112 initially reported this to me today, with is not related to personal attacks, but by making controversial edits. My stance was that her behavior was disruptive, but it was over a wide variety of things, some of them being hotly debated things in the music world. (What's the correct genre for a music release? Is a song a "single" or a "promotional single"? Is it an "album or a "mixtape" etc) that it was hard to block her outright for what she's done lately. My stance was to give her a final warning about making controversial edits without sources, and block her if she broke that. This was not good enough for Ss112, so he came here. I'm just giving my two cents in the matter, someone need not get my approval if you feel a block is warranted now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, block me. I have no interest in fights or accusations. I am an exemplary publisher in other languages, with medals of honor. In my two countries we do not support persecution and hatred. I won't edit any other article in the English wikipedia. Are you happy? So I'm happy for you. With luv (and never again). Patricia CV ^msg 15:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Patricia CV I don't understand where these comments about "hatred" and "persecution" come from. All I've ever witnessed is you lashing out at others, I've never seen anyone do anything to you, nor have you ever provided any evidence of it whenever I ask you directly. You've made edits without sources, and have been asked and warned to stop doing that. That's not "hateful persecution". Its an instruction to follow the rules. Can you really not handle basic interactions and basic policy following? Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• An indefinite block seems appropriate; she's otherwise clearly not going to stop her problematic conduct anytime soon (if ever), and playing victim by falsely accusing others of attacking her just makes things worse. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be okay with holding her to the most recent final warning, or a more formal one like serge proposed, and if an administrator is already willing to enforce such a warning I don't see what the point in bringing it up here is. I know she has a talk page history full of ignored warnings, that she's being disruptive, and that she's in blocking territory, but if an admin is already willing to enforce a final warning, I don't think anything more is needed. Swarm ♠ 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, a final warning has already been enforced on her. So, what more can we say? Not much, really, and thus, at this point, I think that we should definitely block this user indefinitely, especially since she has essentially spent all of her time here on Wikipedia being a disruptive, uncooperative user who bases every single one of her edits here on what clearly seems to be her own personal naivete and emotions instead of any shape or form of objective, unbiased logic. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have posted what I think is a very blunt FINAL WARNING. If there is any further trouble just ping me or drop me a line on my talk page and I will drop the hammer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• My sockpuppetry warning was based on continued introduction of hoax material, following removal as per this AfD to which Patricia never responded.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:05, 21 February 2018 (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.

Unsure what to do

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'm not 100% sure this is where I need to be for this issue. I'm having an issue with an editor on the page for the movie Django Unchained. I added a note after a mention of fictional fights in the movies they call "Mandingo Fights" about them resembling MMA, which if you've seen the movie and watched an MMA fight you will know why I made the reference, in addition to writer/director Quentin Tarantino being an MMA fan. The editor I'm referring to, TheOldJacobite, then reverted the edit claiming it was my opinion, which I probably should have left alone and found a source saying that, but reverted their revert. The revert back claiming some non-existent policy requiring anything in the plot section to be something that is in the film, which when you read WP:FILMPLOT does not exist. So I went to his talk page to discuss it with him, offering to find a source, to which he says he will remove it even if it is sourced because it's "Not in the film" which doesn't make much because it refers to them as "brutal wrestling matches" which is also "Not in the film". So he's showing an unwillingness to come to a consensus. Additionally, I feel his behavior indicates attempt to own this article. Practically every edit, with the exception of a couple, this editor has reverted. If this isn't where I need to go to have this handle, please tell me where to go.--Rockchalk717 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I would also exhort you to find that source first, and argue forward from there; with all due respect, your approach as you describe it does sound a lot like WP:OR. Just a thought! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No consensus can even be considered when one editor wants to add their interpretation and opinion to an article. Referring to these "wrestling matches" as MMA would be to impose a contemporary term in an article about a 19th century topic. I went on to say that the plot section of a film article does not require references because the film itself is the source. They never refer to these wrestling matches as MMA, of course, because such a wording would be anachronistic. If "brutal wrestling matches" isn't the term used in the film, fine, let's say what the film says. But, MMA is not appropriate. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:02, 20 February 2018 (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.

POLEMIC

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

---

Hi, Would someone please remove this and this as I believe it fails POLEMIC,
Kev inr has taken a disliking to me all over me removing his non-notable band from Market Drayton, He's already left a nice message on my userpage[294] so at this point I think a block per NOTHERE might be in order, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note because of previous issues with this user I've not notified them of this discussion, Would rather not inflame things, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've notified them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Floq, They've also left this on my talkpage now too, –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just delete that, and we'll see if the warning took. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

They just restored the POLEMIC-violating diff, and also did this to their talk page (the initial redirection was done by a vandal). SkyWarrior 23:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Out of control. Blocked. Any admin can unblock when they calm down and agree to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always Floq, FWIW I have no objections to them being unblocked providing they obviously drop the stick, anyway thanks again for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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.

---

Our page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Cavalli ) is under attack by this bot and a user called swisstruth please protect our page from this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki:Did you attempt to create a redirect to linkedin? What do you mean our? Clubot remove sudden content removals. It might be helpful to use edit summaries and it might be helpful to discuss changes on the talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki: Your editing on the article is disruptive. What are you trying to do? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And yes, SWISSTRUTH edits are very troubling, also. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

<<ec>> They did revert some negative unsourced edits by SWISSTRUTH. I warned them about the negative unsourced content. They ma need blocking, but were not warned. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki got fed up with the edits of SWISSTRUTH and tried to redirect the article to a linkedin page. Rmcwilliams2004, please don't do that. Use WP:BLPN to report instead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I further reverted some negative material that was questionably sourced. SWISSTRUTH, you might find information at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help useful. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment SWISSTRUTH has protested the further revert on my talk page. I invited them here. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the old adage about usernames with the word "truth" in them being proven true yet again. Blackmane (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The original version was blatant spam. And now it's a battleground, as PR biographies with no reliable sources often become. What's the CSD criterion for "way more trouble than it's worth"? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:A12. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's always the nuclear option. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:TNT? If so, this user came into the help livechat earlier: Based on that conversation and the page history, I can entirely support TNTing the page and starting anew. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was being facetious... Blackmane (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article in question has been ProDed -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (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.

Martini Lewis X/hoaxing and multiple NFCC/FAIRUSE violations

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

---

Martini Lewis X (talk · contribs) has pretty much exhausted my patience, and some of those in WP:WPRS, dealing with radio stations. The user has consistently launched articles about Part 15 'radio stations' which are not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are either only heard within small neighborhoods in the LA suburbs or the user playing pretend and passing hoaxes by us (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVSJ (AM), which included several pagemoves to frustrate the nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99.3 The Game). The user has also uploaded multiple image galleries of older radio station logos which are discouraged per WP:FAIRUSE and WP:NFCC, continues to upload in .jpg despite multiple queries asking for them to upload instead in the better-scaling .png format, and uploads logos raw without any reduction or transparency to meet FAIRUSE/NFCC. The user has been warned more than multiple times as you can see by their talk page, but has not made one solitary talk page edit in article or user space to discuss their contributions. This user at this point is completely not hearing why they need to contribute better or just not here to co-edit, thus a block of some kind needs to be considered. I will inform the user to say something, anything here, but I don't expect them to respond, sadly. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block with talk page access. The block can be lifted if the user is willing to discuss and will stop its disruptive editing. Using the XTools edit counter, we can conclude that the user only edited on the Main (3207 edits), File (237 edits) and Template (95 edits) namespaces: the user never edited any talk page, in its over 2 years of editing history (3539 edits). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support a block to at least to get them to come to the table. After 3000+ edits with very few sources, dozens of notices on their talk page with utterly no responses, NO edits to any other talk pages (!), and very very few edit summaries (the edit counter reports about 1/6 of their edits have summaries but a quick glance at the last 500 suggests that automatic summaries like "Uploading a non-free logo using..." account for practically all of them)... it's time. This is not someone who seems to be interested in editing collaboratively. Personal note: For me, this is another "more in sorrow than in anger" report. This editor is clearly very motivated to edit radio station articles - imagine what the results would be if they were interested in editing collaboratively and in accordance with P&G, MOS, etc. Jeh (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef, as these are serious issues that we cannot deal with when a user is not even communicating. Swarm ♠ 11:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I have no prejudice at all to unblock if they discuss their edits. I've tried to ask them to discuss, including on their AfD's, to no avail. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

IP socking

47.144.100.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has seemed to take a sudden interest in MLX's former haunts; they restored changes I removed on KHTI, along with past edits to KBPL, which MLX has contributed heavily to the past. The IP locates to Pomona, CA; MLX's edits are mostly LA-radio based, with some also in Denver. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And now also Brennen586 (talk · contribs) restored the same edits; account created at 20:38 UTC yesterday. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Both blocked. Swarm ♠ 04:17, 21 February 2018 (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.

Requesting revision deletion on Living With Giants

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.

---

• Living With Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can an admin delete these revisions I've requested on the article itself for copyright violations? The infringing text seems to be included from the start of the article creation, created by the new user Berenice Tomb, so when I found out, I've replaced it with an empty plot section. However, Berenice Tomb and the IP 66.130.186.95 (probably Tomb logged out) does not like the removal, and both have tried to reinsert it to the article. I'd like an admin to intervene before they get themselves in trouble. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. I have revdeleted the offending versions, and left a note to Berenice Tomb regarding copyright. I hope they take my suggestion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry I repeated copying from livingwithgiants.com. I taught that by citing the source and showing the synopsis as a quote from te website there was no copyright infrigment because that's how it is in University. I copy-pasted the text twice but the last time I added to the text that it was a quote from the website. I have no idea how to do quotes and noone anwers my questions... I really don't have bad intentions - Berenice Tomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenice Tomb (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your intentions are bad, which is why Theinstantmatrix did not ask for a block, nor have I blocked you. Just write the plot in your own words. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz committing personal attacks and launching wild accusations

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

---

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has recently taken part in the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Wang_(cadet), however some of his comments have been targeted towards other users such as this edits: [295]. After I had posted this edit [296] and then mentioned on his talk page about his comments referring to other users: [297] he proceeded to then be defamatory towards me in his edit log: [298], after abruptly removing my message from his talk page without him reading or replying to it.

Following a separate issue with an IP user Special:Contributions/199.102.157.125 attacking another user, (User:Mandruss), I proposed a speedy close of the AfD as editors began to spend more time defending themselves from attacks than discussing the AfD. Following this, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz decided to post this edit: [299], where he began to directly accuse of being a sock puppeteer troll. I believe this conduct is absolutely unacceptable from the user in question and warrants action. Additionally following his edit above, he proceeded to make a questionable comment directed at another user: [300]. Thank you for your time and attention. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm disinclined to do anything to the kettle just because the pot demands it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what that means, please elaborate? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It means you're as much at fault as HW is, but at least he didn't come running here. I want to discourage the practice of people snarking at each other and then seeing who can run to ANI first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To put it another way, ChieftanTartarus, Floquenbeam is telling you that you are behaving in much the same way. "Both as bad as each other", "Takes two to Tango", etc; there are myriad expressions that cover it, but the bottom line is simple: you don't, unfortunately, hold the moral high ground in this issue. IMHO, of cousre. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Floq, that is not a pot if you look at the situation objectively. It's an editor who still has some faith in ANI. Since I'm not one, see ya later. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been done over by administrators for much more trivial issues than this, I would expect that someone would take action on this as per WP:AGF. If you read what I have written, I have simply warned him about his conduct, if I can't warn a user without being accused by administrators that I've done something, why bother? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this was more cordial than anything he said there. --Jayron32 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Floq with less snark in my response myself. There are two people acting in a bad way towards each other. They should not do that. However, just because someone does something they shouldn't do doesn't mean we need to do anything. Sometimes the appropriate response is "nothing". No one will be blocked today unless anyone wants to escalate the situation by continuing to act badly. That's all. --Jayron32 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can dispute this further? I fundamentally disagree with how I have been treated here and quite frankly the issue is being made worse by this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he treated you badly. No, he should not have done that. What more do you want? --Jayron32 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not want him blocked, I simply want an administrator to explain the issue to him on his talk page as he is unwilling to understand why I have took issue with his comments. If my comments have caused issue as you say, then at least I have took on board what you have said by communicating with you here. If I comment on his talk page explaining the grievance he will simply delete it. I trust that if an administrator explains it to him, he will understand more. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you have such faith in admins to have some sort of magic spell that makes users suddenly behave. We don't. If I went to his talk page and "explained the issue to him", he'd just get rude to me. He's been here for a very long time, it's not that he doesn't understand the rules of civility, or needs those rules explained to him. He's aware and understands. He's just not interested in following them. My involvement in the situation as you request will not suddenly change that. All it will do is inflame the situation. Being a good admin also includes the ability to reliably predict how any one action is likely to either inflame or calm down a situation. In this case, having myself or any other admin go "You know, you really shouldn't do that" is just throwing gasoline on the fire. In these cases, it's best to let the fire burn out. If we do nothing, we starve him of the oxygen he needs. Just let it go, and move along. Saying that doesn't mean what he did was right; it just means the appropriate response is "nothing". --Jayron32 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just for full disclosure: User talk:Ferret#A User targeting me with personal attacks in an AfD. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As above I came here upon recommendation and assumed some kind of assistance. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that no action will be taken against Special:Contributions/199.102.157.125 for the other issue then? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Kudpung gave them an "only warning", and they haven't continued since. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint, I'll just avoid direct contact with the user in question. Thank you for your help, I think i'll "retire" (User:Only/On_retiring) now Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: I'm sorry, but this is kind of silly, Chief. The original response at AfD was impassioned, but you had an overwhelming delete consensus on your side anyway. You could have responded with policy-based arguments to substantiate that the consensus was not as baseless as HW was making it out to be. You could have not responded at all. Instead, you responded with personal attacks, questioning their commitment to upholding policy and accusing them of having a "personal agenda". I myself have called that user out on their beef with administrators, but even I can see that it was totally irrelevant and unproductive to do so in that context. And that's not even mentioning the fact that you templated them. Yeah, he was mean, and rude, and uncivil to you, and I'm sure he was fully aware of it at the time and didn't care. It's not hard to imagine any established user getting pissed off and opening fire upon receiving the messages you sent. You just so happened to set off someone who doesn't hold back. Don't poke a bear and then run to AN/I when it bites you. Lol. Swarm ♠ 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I didn't template them, Twinkle did and if you look correctly at the edit logs you will see that I removed the templated article heading. Now you're just twisting the truth to back up your arguments. Like I said, I withdraw, why do you insist on bothering me further. "Just let it go, and move along. Saying that doesn't mean what he did was right; it just means the appropriate response is "nothing". --Jayron32 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)" Take that as a stop pinging me or mentioning me. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You didn't template them, Twinkle did? Oh, no! Here I was thinking that you went onto his talk page, opened the Twinkle warning menu, and chose to issue that warning. I didn't realize Twinkle had developed mind of it's own! Someone call the devs, we have a rogue AI on our hands! Swarm ♠ 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

While User:ChieftanTartarus is withdrawing their complaint they should withdraw the negitive comments on me in the same AfD. In my view the worst behaving editor in that AfD is User:ChieftanTartarus Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know who you are? I've never commented against you. Mistaken identity I think? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts after scanning the article I realised that I made this edit: [301] which does not attack you in any way. I shouldn't have to justify myself to you. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2018 (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.