Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978

Peter Thiel and User:MaxBrowne

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.

---

Last June I blocked MaxBrowne for various BLP violations on the Peter Thiel article - stuff like the edit summary here. He then "retired" after complaining about his treatment by admins (mostly me). Now he's back annd edit warring on the article again; I did engage him on his talkpage about this, and for a while did actually manage to start a discussion on the article talk. However, we now have this. An uninvolved admin may want to consider what action to take, if any. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

He repeatedly personalised it. "You" is never a good word to use on talk pages, and repeatedly bringing up past incidents is never going to lead to good results. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The alleged BLP violations did not relate to article content. I actually stand by the edits themselves. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So? Your previous comments make it very hard to trust you around any BLPs, but particular that BLP. If you'd shown some good editing on BLPs since then, maybe your previous problems could be put aside but it's difficult to do that here where you basically disappeared until now. The fact that you're now using the same sort of attacks you used before albeit as personal attacks against editors rather than against article subjects doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. But in any case, it seems clear that the discussion has reached an impasse. If you do want to demonstrate that we should trust you around BLPs, try engaging some form of WP:Dispute resolution to solve it since one of you has to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider that a slur. I'm actually quite careful about BLP's e.g. [2], [3]. Where have I introduced bad material into BLP's? MaxBrowne (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Review your June 2017 block. BLP applies everywhere, not just with article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

He implied that I am a frequent violator of BLP's, without providing any evidence. The claim is false and I take offence at it. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:17, 4 March 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.

I never implied that you were a frequent violator. My point was that you did clearly violate BLP, and have shown zero indication that you understand it should not be repeated, in fact your comments seem to strongly indicate you consider it acceptable to violate BLP in that manner and will do so again in the future. It is therefore very difficult to trust you around BLPs, and particularly the BLP where you made that violation. And I stand by this point.

BLP is important so we don't need repeated BLP violations but simply an unwillingness to accept our BLP policy to indicate your editing is a serious concern. If you think that taking care what content you put in articles while also calling the subjects creeps or other such stuff in edit summaries (or talk pages, or anywhere else on wikipedia) means your BLP editing is okay, you're seriously mistaken. One thing with your BLPvio is while it was outside article space, it served no purpose. People sometimes say questionable things about LPs when mentioning them where they feel it's relevant to the point, I'm generally not happy about that but we tend to let it slide if it's not too extreme since at least there was a reason why it came up, but randomly calling people creeps does not serve such a purpose amongst other things since frankly calling someone a creep is never useful.

If you have shown since then that despite your apparent unwillingness to accept our BLP policy, you are still able to edit BLPs without raising concerns (which as said, include avoiding BLPvios anywhere on wikipedia) then as I said, my concerns would be greatly lessened, but this didn't happen since you disappeared. An indication that you finally accept BLP policy and would not continue to make BLPvios would also help, but by this stage, given you are still willing to call editors at least creeps and also given your follow up comments here (which appear to downplay the seriousness of your BLPvio and make it sound like you don't think it's something serious enough to raise significant concerns) means it's frankly not enough for me to trust you editing BLPs.

This doesn't mean I'm saying you should be topic banned, but you should understand how at least some people are going to feel about your editing given your history. (If you had repeatedly made BLP vios in articles themselves, I would probably be calling for a topic ban or a cban.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall misusing warning templates

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.

---

AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs · logs) AdamDeanHall has started to misuse a warning templates and reverting good-faith edits. This user is known to adding useless information into articles.

Misuse of warning template diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aoi&diff=prev&oldid=827815670

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kailash29792&diff=prev&oldid=827815185

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A72.86.38.133&type=revision&diff=828667595&oldid=778583896

Good-faith edits reverts diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=828668868&oldid=828642470&title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney

Also, this user did adding useless information, as seen in diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AT%26T&diff=prev&oldid=828178016

Given the history of misusing of Level 3/4 and self-made warning templates and putting information that not part of article, a block could be helpful but i don't know. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The last two diffs are nothing actionable, but the misused warning templates for vandalism are truly puzzling. @AdamDeanHall: what's going on with this? Swarm ♠ 12:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This user is at 4th and last warning. AdamDeanHall is going to get blocked soon. This user is also known to upload non-free images and wasted it. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall falsely removed some good-faith edits as "vandalism" and misusing warning templates. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This user is blocked 3 times for edit warring and misusing these warning template is a violation of Wikipedia policy, so it anyone want to block or...? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We can wait for them to respond here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked users can still edit the user own talk page. @NeilN:, AdamDeanHall won't go there at all. AdamDeanHall likes to abuse Wikipedia policy by misusing these warning template. Such violation of Wikipedia policy could lead to a blocks. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Could lead to blocks. Stop badgering. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are people that just put warning into talk page without reading the Wikipedia guidelines. Some people marks good-faith edits as vandalism. Why? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, stop it. Your report is being handled, and further commentary from you is not required. Adam is an established editor in good standing. As things stand right now, we're not going to block him over this. So if that's what you're expecting, you're going to be disappointed. It's not going to happen. If we don't get a good explanation, he will likely recieve a warning. Swarm ♠ 19:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The user you are referring to, 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3, mistakenly put "spin-off" on the Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney page instead of "spun off". That's why I had to correct it. And not only that, he also replaced "and" with the hyphen. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

and you misused warning templates and you did revert good-faith edits. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:9959:5111:7048:CE3C (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Please explain how these edits [4], [5] merited harsh warnings of vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall wants to put it back into own version. AdamDeanHall won't tell at all. These edit linked below is not vandalism. AdamDeanHall will or not get blocked. What AdamDeanHall has done is they revert good faith edits, use self-created/Level 4 warning. AdamDeanHall is a edit warrior, trying to put it back into what it wanted it. AdamDeanHall needs to learn about what is or not vandalism. The top 3 diffs are misuses of warning template. The first 2 diffs uses the one that read "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.". The 3rd diffs uses the Level 4 warning. All of is is a misuse of warning template. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:E1A2:C4C8:6BA3:4376 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 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.

Eagles hard rock genre warrior

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.

---

Especially targeting music articles about the Eagles band, a bunch of IPs has been persistently genre-warring, frequently seen to add the hard rock genre where it is not appropriate. Can we get a pair of rangeblocks on Special:Contributions/2600:1:F514:55CF:0:0:0:0/43 and Special:Contributions/2600:1:F553:58F4:0:0:0:0/43? There will be collateral damage, but some of the other edits from these ranges look like vandalism, so the damage will be minimal. The disruption comes from a person who uses IPs in Rhode Island, Connecticut and nearby Massachusetts, including Boston. NinjaRobotPirate has been keeping track of this case, for instance blocking Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA03::/48 for three months. Recently involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• March 4 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F507:5790:A4E1:2600:BA01:824D
• March 4 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F514:55CF:A551:FAA9:8FF6:8330
• March 2 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F512:F644:13D:1BD9:5AAB:A09B
• February 27 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F51C:5943:5C9D:B073:DDEB:F109
• February 26 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F518:5AE3:3C72:D287:CF81:2020
• February 26 – Special:Contributions/158.123.154.11 (blocked two weeks)
• February 25 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F553:58F4:65CB:9852:31B3:AC8
• February 24 – Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA03::/48 (blocked three months)
• February 17 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F54E:F61E:D50:3094:D18A:DC59
• February 14 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F551:557D:901C:7F2C:5EE5:E90C
• February 13 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F510:E433:EDC2:3E9A:F764:ACCB
• February 7 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F553:D063:8FB:1037:4829:6FEA
• February 5 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F551:7234:B02D:4EA3:2D2E:8641
• February 3 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F50B:A1C2:D904:90DD:32CC:2C28
• February 3 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F547:6637:D927:490F:1C07:7CC
• January 20–21 – Special:Contributions/66.87.125.180
• January 20 – Special:Contributions/66.87.125.104
• January 18 – Special:Contributions/158.123.154.5 (blocked three months)
• January 17 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F549:EA30:693B:5DB7:953C:DFE5
• January 16 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F54F:6276:9C7E:340E:995C:B931
• January 8 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F556:A034:C849:65CB:B22D:898E
• January 4 – Special:Contributions/72.200.184.142 (blocked one week)
• January 3 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F51C:E0DB:D0ED:B386:971B:B571
• January 2 – Special:Contributions/2600:1:F51E:F583:C49:78BE:8820:477B

I know it's frustrating to deal with, but I've been trying to avoid doing a massive range block on this wireless range. I've mostly isolated the editor to this one wireless Sprint IP range, and I've begun semi-protecting the articles. If that's not enough, yeah, I could do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 5 March 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.

Personal attacks

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

---

From fairly new user:

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

Two edit notes:

• diff ...Your paid shilling is getting out of hand
• diff ...your employers don't like their names showing up on Wikipedia?

Talk page, after I warned them:

• diff ...Yet, you feel as if you are the gatekeeper of anything that is added (which is ironic, considering a paid editor like you should maintain it properly). There is word for people like you: shills.

And then they pasted my warnings to them, onto my talk page.

This person needs a timeout. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that they are really new? Literally their first ever edit shows that they knew how to use {{plainlist}} correctly, which I certainly did not when I first came here. Now it is certainly not impossible that there are innocent explanations for this level of wiki skill in a first edit, but it might merit a look. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I agree. There are some similarities to the accounts I listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rachel123s/Archive but given that came back inconclusive and is stale that's not much help. @Bri: This also reminds me of those editors we were discussing who suddenly appear and make loads of updates to company articles. I can't find our emails but maybe you are more organised than I am. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• New or not, WP:NOTHERE. Blocked. The attacks were enough. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't see why WP:NOTHERE should apply - the editor has over 150 edits adding details to infoboxes, with no prior warnings until this episode. This doesn't seem like someone who wasn't here to improve the encyclopaedia. An indef as a result of a brief edit war and some harsh words seems like a disproportionate response. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • • @Bilby: I don't know you but I've seen your username enough that my note may be an imposition. Indef blocks aren't necessarily harsh. Indef could translate into ten minutes. Just saying. Tiderolls 06:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

While that may be true, it isn't how people on the receiving end of an indef block see them. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking is fine, the PAs were ridiculous. I don't have it in me to assume good faith about whatever else the person was up to, even though the content part of the couple of edits I checked looked ok taken in isolation. I can't look at any more right now but I think it's worth at least a wider spot check, to see if any agendas make themselves obvious. I do think it's fine to use actual numbers from RS (like 473 employees if that number came from an SEC report) without having to round them. Just note the report date along with the number. So Jytdog's revert of that edit did come across as gatekeeper-like. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with blocking - just not indef for a first offence on a productive editor using the incorrect grounds of NOTHERE. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

He seems to be primarily interested in adding, among other things, financial information, employee numbers, executive data, and inbox changes to articles - not necessarily not here to build an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The info added to the infoboxes in those diffs looks ok to me (maybe I missed something) but I do get a sense of RGW from that editor, besides the obnoxious affect. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:20, 5 March 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 spreading a virus

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:217.55.190.244 This guy seems to be spreading links to potentially compromised websites in Wikipedia articles that may infect our readers with viruses. I'd recommend blocking him as it seems he's here to do harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks to be on the safe side. Feel free to reverse me if you feel I went overboard.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 5 March 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.

3RR

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

---

We have a classic here, here and here. After the second revert, I started the talk here. But of course I may be wrong on WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Thank you for your opinion. Wakari07 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if there is anything to do here as both are discussing at relevant talk page. I could protect to stimulate the discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me, does the above example qualify for 3RR? Wakari07 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to game the system. I reverted you so you/we need to discuss it on the talkpage first instead of your just trying to unilaterally override my edits by appealing to 3RR. Wingwraith (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

After I was bold a fourth time, you reverted a fourth time, and I don't see a real discussion... I think that you think that the economy of China is irrelevant, non-notable or insignificant. I obviously think that's wrong. Wakari07 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I think as I was very clear in laying out what my objection was. There is a discussion but you just went ahead and unilaterally restored your version of the article that I reverted without gaining consensus on the talkpage first because you thought that you could game the system. Wingwraith (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Now also the Wall Street Journal chimes in: "Chinese Premier’s Economy Speech Offers Plenty for Critics to Dislike". Wakari07 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That belongs in the talkpage; @Dlohcierekim: I think that you can close this thread now as we are discussing the issue on the talkpage. Wingwraith (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There are 4 "discussions": here, the day's events' talk, their talk and my talk page. All four are useful threads for the later study of violent ignorance anyway. Wakari07 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to ask my question again: does Wikipedia consider the above example as WP:3RR? I saw it as a simple yes-or-no question. Thanks. Wakari07 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 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.

can someone help me? east germany article

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

---

, ok i made a mistake its Obsessive–compulsive disorder i did not mean any vandalism, and there is no RS for that partially recognised label, so ok please have it removed, it was added by Teddy.Coughlin who is is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts 194.68.94.68 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've never read or heard about East Germany being partially recognized from 1949 to 1972. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. For me, it's a no-no too. Wakari07 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Having lived though part of the Cold War but not knowing the sourcing, I'm pretty sure US did not recognize East German government?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 5 March 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 perhaps suppressing additions and giving unreasonable justifications for reverting

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 is Deacon Vorbis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States&oldid=828945087 > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States&oldid=828945087#List_of_school_massacres_in_the_United_States (is the reverted content)

23h112e (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• He's quite right. Why are you copying and pasting huge chunks of text into the talkpage when you could just link to (a) the AfD, and (b) the revision of the AfD'd article with that content in? Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• See also User talk:23h112e#English issues (and some of the previous sections) for some context here. I guess the best way to head off an ANI discussion about yourself (which I've been really hoping to avoid), is to bring one up about the other person first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is with regards to why Deacon Vorbis has reverted the the section. That is the defined opening description to this section thanks Black kite. Perhaps you would like to pass your eyes over the opening words of this section and re-focus on the reason why I opened the discussion. Whether or not I made an error in the over-adding of content at the section - isn't the current topic of the ANI discussion. I want to know why Deacon Vorbis thinks reverting the content, but not re-adding the discussion is acceptable. This is with regards to how it is possible the discussed School massacres was forked in any case, when I already added the massacres content to List of school shootings in the United States, to find the content unacceptable there, then subsequently deleted via suggestion by Deacon Vorbis from an article I had no choice other than to make, then a discussion of the fact of the massacres content in the List of school shootings reverted. 23h112e (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the word "massacre" (and the relevant definition by the FBI) and the word "shooting" refers to the same thing. 23h112e (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. And 23h112e, you don't get to tell other people what they may or may not bring up at a discussion here. Anything relevant can be considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a variety of significant issues here, since this is part of an ongoing pattern of trouble, but I only have time to deal with one at the moment. 23h112e, it is not necessary to paste 15K sections of article text to the talk page after your additions there have been repeatedly reverted. You can use a diff to link to a version of the page that included the deleted text. The way you are presenting your argument on the talk page makes it seem like you are trying to avoid consensus that the text should not be in the article by making sure it continues to appear prominently on the talk page. Do you understand this? As I mentioned on your talk page last month, I think you need to review WP:LISTEN and WP:CONSENSUS. Dekimasuよ! 20:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm the user who opened the discussion here with - User perhaps suppressing additions and giving unreasonable justifications for reverting. As I've already explained, the content I added at the Talk page was added so editors might see the content immediately and navigate the content, another formatting of the same content, is simply a different formatting. The formatting of the content is not the actual topic I wanted to indicate. I could simply re-add the Talk page content as Deacon Vorbis prefers, but I want to know why the article content, "List of school massacres in the United States" isn't already included in the article. The conclusion was - content fork, to the redirect discussion. Deacon Vorbis doesn't think the content needs to be re-included in the "List of school shootings in the United States", he didn't re-add the content - WP:CFORK > WP:REDUNDANTFORK - "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_school_massacres_in_the_United_States - The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. Consensus is that this article is a WP:CFORK of List of school shootings in the United States (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• comment from a non-administrator contributor - Firstly, 23h112e is fairly new to wiki and not fully appreciative of how things are done. This should not mean bringing the person to AN/I, but taking the person off to the side and working with them. I've just become aware of this misunderstanding and have only just begun to deal with them on their TP, but this will take both some time and understanding. 23h112e is attempting to make the point (however poorly) that massacres should not be lumped in with small shootings. I'm trying to get them to understand that the article does not even yet have a clear definition of the term and they need to start with that issue, first. Please, can everyone climb out of the trees. This person doesn't even know how to indent on TPs, so speak to them nicely on their TP as a starting point, not here. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is all an admirable response on your part, and I agree that 23h112e should be presented the opportunity to improve. However, this has been going on for a while without much sign of progress, and most of the respondents here have been speaking with 23h112e on talk pages. 23h112e was the one who brought this to ANI. Dekimasuよ! 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

comment from a non-administrator contributor - If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:49, 5 March 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.

Spring Hill, Tennessee

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

---

Could someone please semi protect the above. I already posted at RPP, but the vandalism level is nuts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 6 March 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 does not understand what fascism is

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 did not understand that fascism is really more about political and industrial control when they suggested "Up yours fascist Pig. I know you Gestapo types don't listen to reason" at AfD. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

IP has hit the nail on the head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

indeed... [6] [7] [8] [9] EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Support the inevitable indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A sampling of recent edit summaries by Jjhantsch, the editor in question, makes it clear that, whether or not they understand the meaning of various geopolitical terms, they are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia: "Fixed ambiguity caused by British anti-religion hatred","Fixed fuckin Brit Nazis bigotry.","F off British Nazis.",""Up yours Wiki Nazis.","Up yours Wiki Nazis!","F off Nazi. Walked it both years.","up yours English Nazis.","F off British Wiki Nazis.","improved texts to avoid Wiki Nazis." General Ization ^Talk 04:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly disruptive behavior. However we do not block w/o warning except in very unusual circumstances. I have issued a final warning. If there is anymore of this nonsense just ping me and I will drop the hammer. Or alternatively you may report it to WP:AIV. Just reference this discussion. (It's getting late here and I am off to bed shortly.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for talking to them. I do think they deserve a permanent block-- what organization in real life would allow someone to run around for years calling their colleagues fascists and Nazis? "hey Jack, nice to see you, you F Nazi!" This is actually a serious problem in Wikipedia, in that editors (in this case someone who has called other editors "Fucking brit Nazis" over a half dozen times) are allowed to go on about their way being very nasty bullies. That's why I am in IP editor, since when I get bullied I can just reset the router. Anyway, it's sad situation when this kind of obvious nastiness only deserves a warning.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one seems to have called them out for their behavior until now. I can't find any evidence of earlier warnings on their talk page. In any event the requisite warning has now been given. And I do agree that many (not all) of their edit summaries are just flatly unacceptable and this will no longer be tolerated. Thank you for bringing this to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

< 500 edits over 2 years, I guess they've flown under the radar till now. Might be a while before they see the ANI notice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And Godwin's law wins once again. A stern warning is needed here, but not a block unless the user persists in being uncivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Block as per Iznation & Ad Orientem. Clearly WP:NOTHERE 2601:401:500:5D25:78D4:18EB:831:2E68 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 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.

Please redact edit summary for OSI model revision

May we please redact the obscenity in the edit summary for this change on OSI model? Peaceray (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fish+Karate 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Attack account, conflict of interest

I called a user on account of conflict of interest, and she made an attack account, a play on my username. She has also violated WP:MULTIPLE, using her IP and her attack account on the same article. Can the attack account be blocked? The IP has also attacked me.[10] Any help here would be appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• 172.250.65.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 107.77.229.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Notbinker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Registered account blocked, IPs given a 48 hour timeout. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing

KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing [11]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 72 hours.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:他删之石 on Deaths in 2018

他删之石 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a regular contributor to the Deaths in 2018 page. This user has been told several times that he needs to include the headings of the articles that are used as reference, see User talk:他删之石. Still, the user continues to add references without headlines. This is getting very tiresome to have to correct all the time. The user doesn't seem to understand the issue at hand, and might need to be addressed in Chinese, which Alex Shih previously offered to do. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I live in China and some web I can't open. I have no VPN, so I can't see the title.--他删之石 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We can all sympathise with the problems accessing resources in China. But I don't quite understand how this stops you adding titles for pages. If you are able to access pages you should be able to see the titles. If you are not able to access the pages, then there is no way you should be using them as references, since you need to actual read references to confirm they actually say what you claim they are saying. If you don't have references then often, and particularly in cases of "Deaths in", you shouldn't be adding content. An unfortunate problem for sure, I suggest you propose the content on the talk page and if you think a reference confirms it, you can provide it and wait for someone else to confirm and add. Or are you saying the Great Firewall removes only the titles but still lets you see the text? Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not the user above, but The Great Firewall very well might do just that, as headlines are more often than not either a separate document or a graphic; this is an extremely common issue with special browsers designed for the blind. The user might not have any way of knowing that there is a headline! 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I never said that it's not possible. I simply asked the editor if this is what they are claiming happened. I asked because I knew that it was possible, but the fact that it's possible doesn't mean it is actually happening. The editor has said nothing to really suggest it is happening other than some vague mention of needing a VPN. However they proceeded that with "some web I can't open" which sort of suggests it's probably a simple case of the page being blocked. (As I said below, there's no point getting into detail about what is and isn't theoretically possible.) Also you're mistaken about what headlines are. They are not a seperate document. They are part of the same HTML file. (Well unless the page does some very weird shit likely embedding the content as a seperate page, but thankfully really few pages especially RS do that shit anymore.) Because of the way a the HTML file is structured, they may or may not cause problems with screen readers but that does not mean they are a seperate document. (Very often the headline will be somewhere in the HTML TITLE anyway.) If the headlines are graphical then they may be a separate graphic but except perhaps for uncommon language pages, most of which I presume the OP doesn't speak so are irrelevant, any normal webpage which uses graphics for their text is probably not an RS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)04:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think you should seriously ease up on the criticisms of our fellow Chinese colleague. The Great firewall of china is a serious piece of software and hardware and meatware, which the government devotes no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars to, if not billions. You might not be realizing the scope of the control of information, and the possibility of pages being rewritten dynamically. The Chinese leader just decided to scrap democratic term limits. We're not talking about a normal situation where you can ream out an editor who is living on an equal playing field.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is any concern about pages being re-written in a way beyond the removal of headlines then my point stands even more. The editor should not be editing these pages, but at most proposing them on the talk page. While we may have sympathy for the problems editor faces, we cannot compromise our standards because of them. If an editor is adding content, they should be resonably sure any sources they are using actually say what they are claiming. If the source may have been modified by a third party, then they cannot be sure. This has nothing to do with reaming anyone out, but remininding an editor they need to meet our standards. Worse comes to worse, we may have to enforce it but I think everyone here is hoping it doesn't come to that and the editor voluntarily restricts their edits so they meet our standards. Also as with the other editor, I think you're missing an important issue here. I'm sure many of us are aware that the firewall could do that. The question is, is it happening? The editor has said that they cannot add headlines because of censorship but has offered no explanation why. There is no point talking a great deal about what theoretically could happen. After all, if it's not HTTPS even those living in progressive democractic pages could still nominally be served a different page if it's specifically targeted. This doesn't actually require software that is particularly sophisticated, especially if they are using their ISP's DNS. The fact that it could happen doesn't mean it is happening. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion is that IP user, please note that the English Wikipedia is not a soap box, so please avoid political references; the Great Firewall of China, which can be easily bypassed from experience, is a red herring as we are talking about the user not adding references properly. If they are adding sources without being able to view the source, then that's a problem. Alex Shih (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The behaviour continues. 他删之石, you have to understand that this behaviour cannot continue! If you can't read the headline, then the Great Firewall must be blocking the whole article. In that case you can't use it if you can't read it. It's as simple as that. What the IP user says above is simply not true, I've never seen an article that has a headline as a graphic or a separate document. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Political agenda editor

User:INDICATOR2018 is another user who is only here to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to WP:NOT. Edit warring over Japanese, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao stuff; censorship of content referenced to reliable sources simply because it might not reflect well on China, THE USUAL. Admitted to being the same person as a slew of IPs that had been edit warring over the exact same content for weeks previously. Yet never any action against this sort of disruptive editing. The intent of these kinds of "patriotic editors", who are becoming an increasing problem, is completely incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia created through consensus. Citobun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how would it not be? Britmax (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "free" here refers to free content, a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).

A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days. Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy. Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored. After this user got an account, he/she kept edit warring over the same thing. One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty. Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat". Downplaying ROC sovreignty. Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like here. Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.

Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. And the above comment by INDICATOR2018 lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies, like WP:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies)
2. In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war(this version), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what MOS:PUFF states. Currently, due to this edit made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
3. For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with Gyaincain Norbu which states Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama selected by the government of People's Republic of China and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
4. As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation before making your accusation.
5. For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see Administrative divisions of China) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
6. Concerning Battle of Toungoo, I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
7. For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty [sic], please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what List of states with limited recognition states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
8. In terms of what happens in Category:Hong Kong, please see a third opinion made by Zanhe (talk · contribs):

   "city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-state and other dictionaries.

   Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?
9. Regarding the Talk:Baren Township riot, my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys

   I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks

   in this edit.
10. For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is English Wikipedia, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.

Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Low-level" means "not explicit". It's not an insult. In other words, while many of the edits are defensible on an individual basis, together they amount to a campaign of political agenda editing, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT. The WeChat edit warring illustrates well the overall intent of these editing patterns – your proposed change serves absolutely zero functional purpose except to downplay censorship of WeChat. As despite objections from several users, you rammed it through through blunt force edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then the page got protected, then you made an account and reverted again). No consensus and no rationale rooted in any Wikipedia policy. It is clear you are WP:NOTHERE to help build a free and informative encyclopedia, but subtly push content to align with the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user's actions have so far mainly been reverted by well-meaning editors, but could hurt peoples' ability to find damaging information about the Chinese government in the future. Not acting to stop this user now would only encourage further action by this user and others who wish to twist the encyclopedia for their own ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun:

1. Since my editing wars can be well explained, why do you insist on making your own assertions that those wars are of "political agenda"? Apparently you are too assertive on this issue.
2. For the Wechat stuff, I would like to add that those so-called several users are very likely to belong to the same person given that those users (all of whom are IPs) are all SPAs whose very first edits were to undo mine. Also, my edits are definitely not of "absolutely zero functional purpose". Making such assertions can only demonstrate your non-objectivity. Lastly, not all the edits made on Wikipedia have to root in WP policies. My rationales have been quite clear that my edits on Wechat were based on the establishments set by other similar articles. You, however, have been accusing me with all kinds of labels that you could think of instead of discussing the actual content of the articles. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Still edit warring at WeChat I see. That's eight or nine reverts now? This is blatant disruptive editing for political purposes, not sure why an admin hasn't taken any action. Citobun (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how moving criticism/controversy after features and descriptions indicates "political agenda". This is merely the standard format for articles of commercial products and services, see Google, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. The shifting IPs INDICATOR2018 was edit warring with are obviously a single person, possibly a sockpuppet using mobile IPs to avoid detection. And the article was previously protected because of this user. -Zanhe (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that every single change this user makes that isn't insignificant somehow subtlety pushes the views of the Chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT

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.

---

Rhatsa26X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rhatsa26X seems to think that school articles in Southern Indiana are his alone to edit and has just told me quite directly to stop editing them here.

This stems from this diff. The dispute is the school colors and his assertion is that his personal observations trump the definitive secondary source, the Indiana High School Athletic Association's yearbook. This isn't just a simple content dispute and after this from a couple months ago, I don't see how dialogue will be fruitful.

Rhatsa26X has a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana and indeed brags of creating most of the article's in Category:Indiana high school athletic conferences. A quick perusal of that catagory will indicate the depth of the problem.

I'm here to ask the community to clearly show Rhatsa26X that he cannot order an editor off an article and that WP:V is really a thing. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking the community to ask John from Idegon to stop reverting the page. He's being rather rude about it too. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are wikipedians in the area that have had their edits removed by this John from Idegon too. He seems to think he knows EVERYTHING about all the schools in the area, even those he's most likely never seen. He seems to think that any school article is HIS personal fiefdom.

From his talk page, I KNOW he's been rude with other editors in other parts of the country too, even coming across to them like they are not worthy.

Bottom line; just because you're with wikiproject schools, you are not an all knowing god.

There ARE those who know more than you do. And if you want to simply allow content about rural schools that is WP:V, you won't have any page at all. Do you honestly think I haven't tried? Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rhatsa26X: WP:V is policy and it doesn't say, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors (unless there is no previously published information in which case adding personal knowledge is okay)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Beliefs seem to be at the heart of the issue here. He has already stated the I "have a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana". If this is truly the case, why then did WikiProject Illinois adopt the same format on their sports as well a couple of years later and others in WikiProject Indiana have long since took the mantle of keeping the project up to date since I finished it in 2010. That's right. I have made very few edits to those pages in almost 8 years, others have. Unfortunately as I just said, most information about rural schools in Indiana, or any other state for that matter is usually not compliant with WP:V but that does nor mean it's not true either. That's where outside of general information, it should be left to locals to fill in the blanks.

That being said, I DO NOT mean creating trivia or anything like that, but every single school, be they Elementary, Middle, or High School has something about it that only a local or an alumnus might know. and to remove that content, even, and especially in this case, if there is a legitimate picture to prove it, is not acceptable. There is a saying; A picture is worth a thousand facts and I took that picture of Gibson Southern's softball team myself. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the more common version, but maybe "a thousand facts" is a variation. I think there are WP:V and WP:OR issue with pictures, and any picture taken by you would technically be user-generated or self-published: things which are not typically considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. It would be better to find another source which discusses the school's colors. My high shcool had a handbook which explained things like school colors, mascots, logos ,etc., but that was way before the Internet age. I'd imagine most schools have official websites now, which perhaps contains such information, not only for current students and their parents, but also for future students and their parents. Or, maybe there's a local newspaper or something which can be used; even a school newpspaper might be OK. These are things which you can and should hash out through discusison on the article's talk page. Now, if you really believe your picture is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, you should post at WP:RSN and see if you can establish a consensus that it is. What you shouldn't really be doing is just expecting others to accept it as reliable because you took the picture and you are an alumnus of the school. Two people can look at the same painting and interpret it differently and both interpretations may be correct in some way. Is it possible that you're mistaking someone questioning the reliablitly of a source for Wikipedia's purposes as them questioning you're reliability as a person. When someone says that a source is not reliable, they are not necessarily saying that the article content is not true; they are just saying a better source is needeed. My high school has an article written about it on Wikipedia. I know lots of true things about my high school, but I don't add them to the article because of WP:VNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• While this discussion takes place, Rhatsa26X has continued to edit war in order to restore unsourced content and non notable persons. I've reverted and issued a level four warning. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• You guys are totally impossible! You guys are warring against me! I am the one who is BEING BULLIED and Harassed over content. I am about tempted to ask for a complete deletion and start over from scratch AGAIN! Rhatsa26X (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhatsa26X: Stop reverting back in unsourced content, especially about living people. Full stop. Do so again and you're looking at a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Rhatsa26X: I've also removed some material from your user page per WP:BLP. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if the "My View on Issues" section violates WP:POLEMIC or WP:UP#GOALS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• The problem isn't limited to Gibson Southern; Pocket Athletic Conference is an example of an article that's been weighted with an accretion of unsourced content over a period of years. There may be more such articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've had it with all this. This situation has become as dumb as national politics. John from Indegon has been bullying me and others for a while now and needs to be stopped and yet you guys seem to be willing to bully and even blacklist ME instead over this rather pointless issue. His behavior is one of the most trollish I've seen in a decade. He doesn't listen. He doesn't collaborate. He only mindlessly reverts, then when someone tells him to stop, he becomes extremely defensive and Administration has to get involved. So rather than continue with this never-ending stupidity, I have added the page to WikiProject Indiana's list of articles needing attention. Maybe someone else in Indiana will have better success in creating a page that meets the critiques of John from Indegon and those who seem to still think there's a website for everything. I have seen THOUSANDS of articles with such issues and have tried to clean them up.

I am taking a sabbatical from the cesspool of stupidity Wikipedia has become. I USED to actually be proud to be myself a Wikipedian but trolls like John that have clearly taken to acting hatefully towards me have stolen that pride from me. Rhatsa26X (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns an article per WP:OWN, which means nobody can decide who should or shouldn't edit an article. Moreover, editors come from all over the world so there's no geographical restrictions placed on who may edit an article. Someone living in Europe can edit an article about an American high school just like someone living in Asia can edit an article about a European high school. All that matters is whether the edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If they are, there shouldn't be any major issues; if they are not, they there are likely going to create problems. Being an alumnus of a particular school does not mean an final say or ultimate editorial control over article content. What to leave in and what to take out is still determined by consensus and when there are disagreements it WP:DR, not WP:EW, which should be followed. Everything I just posted are things that the Wikipedia Community might expect a new inexperienced editor to not really understand, but more is certainly to be expected from someone who has been (regularly) editing since 2007.

My suggestion to you (=Rhatsa26X) would be to take a step back and let things cool down for a bit because if you continue to post things and cast aspersions like you're doing above , then you're likely going to find your account blocked for quite a long time. It's pretty much never a good idea to post when you're angry because there's a tendency to lash out, which only makes things worse. If you're involved in a content dispute, find the reliable sources you need, get your arguments ready, and post them on the article's talk page when things have setteled down. Telling someone to come see things with their own eyes is not going to help because even if I went to school in question and saw things with my own eyes, it would still be WP:OR. If you're truly interested in being WP:HERE you will figure out a civil way to resolve things and find common ground where all sides can agree. If you insist on being WP:NOTHERE, well you probably won't be "not here" for much longer. If you want total control over articles about Indiana high schools where you can post all of your personal knowledge, and decide who can or cannot post, then you should create your own website or try something like Wikia. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to need to play by Wikipedia's rules, which includes WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that (a sabbatical) is a good idea--there's a willful and long term disregard for a basic premise of constructive editing here--supporting all content with reliable sources. I'm sorry that trying to put the brakes on this--after apparently a decade--is perceived as trolling. To insist that unsourced trivia belongs here, over a rapidly formed consensus, and call other editors bullies and trolls partaking of stupidity is nearly a WP:COMPETENCE issue. And WP:BOOMERANG. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have rarely seen such a flagrant and overt rejection of our core content policy verifiability as Rhatsa26X displayed above. This person cannot be allowed to edit unless they recommit to our core content policies. Please do so, Rhatsa26X. I think that John from Idegon deserves some kind of medallion or certificate of appreciation for trying to clean up non-compliant garbage from our school articles. Indiana enjoys no special exemption from our policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (non-admin closure) I removed the message on your talk page, but the diff is still there.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  09:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This report can be widened in scope. The concerns involve more accounts that are interested in Indiana high schools, adding unsourced and promotional content, original research and charts--oh so many charts--of dubious value. One of dozens of examples of poor sourcing and aforementioned chart porn: Southern Indiana Athletic Conference. See edit histories for Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs). I've only begun to peruse these, and have tagged several articles for lack of sources. Have a look at PAC Spring Titles--can anyone determine the credibility of its only source, or offer thoughts as to whether this is notable to begin with? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed (two months later) that on the talk page conference referenced from my archive above, Rhatsa changed my signature to his in an edit doing only that here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Close please

This is not going to go any further, that much is clear. I would ask that an administrator please close this and make clear the obvious consensus that utter disregard for pillar policies is not going to be tolerated going forward. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

We suffer these kinds of editors far too much. People come here with their regional, ideological, and cultural bias' and then try to run us over. I propose that Rhatsa26X is indefinitely topic banned from all Indiana related articles broadly construed. It seems that this topic area is stressful for us and stressful enough for them that they need to take a break. If such time that they want to abide by wp:v then they can appeal to the community to have their ban lifted. --Adamfinmo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to distract, but why are all topic bans reflexively "broadly construed"? Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. Can we save the construing for when it's really needed? EEng 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. I take it you're new around here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, Boris, don't bite the newbies! (Although how a newbie can accumulate a talk page large enough to see from space in such a short period of time I'll never know!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you give me an example of an article which would not clearly fall under this topic ban without "broadly construed", but would with it? Because if no, then I'm with EEng on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The idea is to short circuit wiki lawyering. Is John Green (author) an Indiana related article? What about Indianapolis 500? Wha bout Madge Oberholtzer? The idea of the "broadly construed" phrasing is to avoid tediously defining the scope of topic bans.--Adamfinmo (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I think a ban from articles related to schools in Indiana would be sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of Block and let him explain in an unblock request. I know that seems harsh, but look at what we've got here. He edit wars over the exact same issue in late December, when faced with complete opposition, he simply stops editing. Until this. It's my feeling this qualifies as ongoing disruption. His behavior here, and in both instances on my talk, indicate WP:CIR. Please let's get an assurance that he's going to accept obvious community standards such as V prior to letting him loose on the community again. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I fall in with John from Idegon on this. After more than a decade of being given free rein, when finally called out on these edits he attacks several of us, throwing around the troll word and playing the victim. The damage, as I indicated above, is widespread. There are dozens of Indiana high school articles, some of dubious import and many with few or no sources, that have been created and maintained by a few accounts. After a decision is made re: this editor, attention to a laundry list of related articles will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I left notes two days ago with two other editors, Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs), who have been deeply involved in constructing these articles, again, often sans sources, inviting them to comment here. Would very much like to hear from them. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rhatsa26X has 30k edits, but this appears to be his first trip to ANI. He started contributing a decade ago when WP:V was not as important as it is today. I'm willing to give Rhatsa26X the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of this gradual change. I think a final warning is appropriate, with further sanctions if there are subsequent violations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think "all Indiana related articles broadly construed" is a bit too far as, from what I see presented here, the issue is with schools. However, a topic ban is appropriate. It gives Rhatsa26X the "benefit of the doubt" Billhpike mentions while also upholding Wikipedia's policies. If Rhatsa26X moves to other areas and disruptively edits, then a block maybe justified. 2601:401:500:5D25:1C79:DCFF:DBE3:9D25 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Block and let him explain in an unblock request - for these [12][13] unexplained reverts and above arguments against WP:VERIFY. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 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.

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:Wingwraith

matter resolved. No further need for comments about editors rather than content.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved User (perceived as unconstructive) wants me to review a non-existing argument on yesterday's Current events talk page. I also denounce its apparent need of "amalgamation" which i don't understand and think is its burden, not mine. I got discussed and supported by consensus the topic of notability (as testified by User:Icarosaurvus, the only user or IP who weighed in in the content of this "feud"). After questioning my interpretation of the previous (3RR) ANI notice, user now awaits my "intervention". Please help. Wakari07 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC) While I was hoping to avoid this particular conflict, my opinion is that the matter is indeed notable. However, I do feel that Wingwraith has a point in that a broader summary of the expected outcomes might be advisable. To be clear, I mean a summary that includes China's economic plans; perhaps something similar to what was used in the BBC article. While I'd definitely prefer not to get in the middle of a disagreement between two other editors, I will state that the majority of my edits, over the past several years, involve gnoming in the area of the current events page, and in this time I have noted that Wakari07 generally has a good sense of what is notable and helps keep the page presentable. If it is desired, I could attempt my own summary of the event in question. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @Icarosaurvus: Please do (on the talkpage). Wingwraith (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @Icarosaurvus: Sorry for the bother. Wakari07 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC) I've full-protected Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 for 2 days (Twinkle default), since we're probably at about 10RR by now. No opinion on the content dispute. Pinging the two outsiders who participated in the last AN/I report: Dlohcierekim, Bbb23. ansh666 09:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC) comment I've no opinion on the content dispute. In retrospect, I should have followed my first instinct and PP'd the thing. @Icarosaurvus: That might save some wading. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Apparently, neither editor heeded my warning. Had I not been asleep, I would have blocked them both.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) I've posted my suggestion to to the talk page, if anyone wishes to take a look. Wakari07 has already encountered it, and made some constructive suggestions. I am not fully sure that the two day protected status is needed, but those of us who regularly edit current events do tend to feel things are a bit more urgent than is necessarily the case. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your time and effort. ansh: I understand the page was blocked for WP:Protection policy#Content disputes and WP:Edit_warring. Wakari07 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Wakari07 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Oh yeah, I should have mentioned this before: once there's consensus on the talk page, the protection can be removed by any admin. No need to wait for it to expire. Thanks, ansh666 21:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) I believe consensus has been established; either an Admin can post it, or I can do so once it has been unlocked. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC) @Icarosaurvus, Wakari07, and Wingwraith: Unprotected, thanks for taking the time to talk it out. ansh666 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Life goes on. Sorry for your waste of time. Wakari07 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Maybe one more question. Did you read the summary on this edit? "rv notifications for useless ANI requests". I'm unsure on how to handle the point of view that ANI requests would somehow be useless by definition. Wakari07 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC) It's a lot more common opinion than you may think. In any case, there's nothing wrong with that edit. ansh666 01:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC) @Ansh666: yes.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you. Miserable recidivist Sinophobia also. Wakari07 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for desysop of Fram

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 has been a long time coming as I and many others believe that Fram has been the biggest bully on English Wikipedia for a time now. While Fram has no doubt contributed to articles and does appear to care about content, I consider him to be an overall hindrance to Wikipedia because of the negative effects he has on other editors. This is not an editor purely going about improving the site, but an editor who appears to systematically target individuals (which over the years have included Cwmhiraeth, Laura Hale, Ritchie, Ymblanter, Rich Farmbrough, Nvvchar, myself and dozens of others) and bullies them often overzealously to the point of submission from editing the site by humilating and harassing them in the guise of cleansing Wikipedia of inaccuracies, copyright violations, DYK errors and lacking GAs. Fram's misconduct of late I think is a prime example of why he should no longer hold admin tools in the way he treated Mathsci who had suffered a stroke and the way in which he has tried to generate drama by starting a sensationalist thread on Dr. Blofeld and copyright here rather than deal with it quietly. He became very abusive when challenged and then proceeded to open another arbcom case, one of several which have been rejected in recent months alone. He is causing a nuisance to ArbCom and his behaviour has been brought into question currently by many others. His temperament and social understanding is severely lacking to the point I believe that it is in the best interest of the site that he is stripped of his administrative powers.

• Laura Hale retires after being harassed by Fram for many months
• Fram blocks Mathsci for a week. Mathsci recently suffered from a stroke and was recovering at the time, however Fram does not grasp the concept
• "Please explain yourself more clearly, as I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Cwmhiraeth's editor review
• Fram accuses Cwmhiraeth of using personal attacks, tells her to "fuck off". Fram remains confrontational, but shrugs it off.
• "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room"
• "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here". Personal attack was removed for a third time
• Fram's proposal to ban Laura Hale from DYK fails. The proposal was considered aggressive
• Another proposal to topic ban Laura Hale, a year later. ("Fram has a history of hounding me")
• User: Fram "Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow"
• Inappropriate threats made by Fram,[14]
• "I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion". Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign
• "I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across"
• Week-long block considered excessive, refuses to accept compromises[15][16]
• Hounding Gatoclass[17][18][19]
• Fanatical over adding hyphens, 24 hour block
• Fram delists four of Nvvchar's GAs without the criteria being mentioned[20][21][22][23]. Per WP:GAR, "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality, if possible."
• Fram proposes DYK ban for LavaBraon. Two months later LavaBraon retires, citing a campaign of personal harassment
• Rich Farmbrough's arbcom case - has a witch hunt happened?
• Misuse of tools by Fram
• Bullying of Geo Swan
• Fram blocks Elisa.rolle indefinitely, deletes a dozen articles due to unambiguous copyright infringement without community discussion.[24] Continued to gravedance[25]
• Fram threatens to block Martinevans for having YouTube links on his user page.[26] Unsurprisingly, he actually does it. The block was seen as vindictive and transferal to ANI for a community discussion was recommended
• More bullying towards Martinevans
• Fram accused of being an "attack administrator"
• Discussions on GA regarding Flat Bastion Road. Fram's proposal to have it deleted backfires
• Proposal to topic ban Cwmhiraeth from DYK after Fram rejects Cwmhiraeth's attempt to make peace
• "I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Strains on ArbCom[27][28]

Fram has an incredibly long history of harassing other editors, I would be here all year really getting to the bottom of it but virtually everything I came across was Fram taking the commanding position and acting very aggressively or in a hostile fashion towards other editors rather than working with people towards improving articles or improving what he seems to be problem. Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project and administrators are supposed to help rather than hinder the community. His temperament, manipulation and apathy has driven many people off over the years. I think it's gone on long enough, it's time to stand up to this bully. JAGUAR 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sadly support. The evidence above shows a long history, both deep and wide, of using his admin tools (or using the threat of admin tools) to gain leverage in disputes or drive away editors with whom he has disagreements. It's gone on too long, and is unbecoming of the role of admins at Wikipedia. The repeated attempts to weaponize Wikipedia processes such as ANI discussions and ArbCom cases against others is not helpful to the maintenance and growth of the project. Fram has been useful especially in dealing with LTA cases and the like, but his zeal has come to be more of a liability than an asset. --Jayron32 17:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I thought only ArbCom could desysop? - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I'm not sure what the procedure is on whether or not someone else can start the discussion. I'd kinda assume that if there's a very clear community consensus, they'd at least discuss the issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Only ArbCom can desysop. If you want them to look at this, the correct thing to do would be to file a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Fram needs to have How to Win Friends and Influence People as his bedside reading material. It is probably missing from his library at the moment. Anyway, it is a matter beyond ANI, as mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  (EC x a billion, reply to all above) See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, which states "Requests to revoke another user's adminship may also be made using the dispute resolution process." This would be part of that. We're allowed to have the discussion; if a clear community consensus develops, then ArbCom would have a hard time disputing that. --Jayron32 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think having a discussion here first would help straighten things out. If ArbCom is the proper venue then we could move it to that, but I was aware that a desysop request could be made using the dispute resolution process - WP:ANI. JAGUAR

• Just as a point of order, at least some of the diffs above are taken wildly out of context; e.g. *"I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion". wasn't Fram boasting that his admin bit gave him some kind of elevated status, but his pointing out (correctly) that Ymblanter was abusing admin status to claim it gave him some kind of special authority in content disputes. Plus, without wanting to state the screamingly obvious, quite a few of the people to whom Fram was directing abuse in the (often years-old) diffs above were seriously problematic serially disruptive editors. (FWIW, Fram had nothing to do that I can see with Ymblanter's resignation—that was a temper tantrum in response to not getting his way in this thread, on which Fram didn't comment at any point.) ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  What you say about me is incorrect. If I wanted to resign because I did not get my way at ANI, I would say "I want to resign because I did not get my way at ANI". This is not what I said. Certainly, Fram aggressive behavior towards me (as well as yours, to a much lesser extent) contributed to my loss of confidence and led to my resignation. And I did not abuse admin status, whatever Fram or you may think about it. (I still maintain that Fram's, and then yours attempt at mindreading in the episode you mention failed badly, but this is not relevant for this thread anyway). I wish Fram gets desysopped for cause ASAP, but at this point I will not spend my time finding diffs facilitating a new Arbcom case. Honestly, I have better ways to spend my time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I wonder how many other editors will come out of retirement to see Fram get desysopped?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, noticing that the diff you provided actually shows removal of the retirement template (and this was not today) would be a good first step.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  TGS is pointing out that four days ago you said I am not contributing in this project in any capacity. I might be back in several months. and yet here you are at the first chance to score points regarding one of your old grudges. And you wonder why the community fails to take you seriously. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I am coming closer and closer to the conclusion that this was not the community who does not take me seriously but a bunch of assholes. But you are right, I should indeed stop writing here. Whoever is interested can now read my response to an incorrect statement which was made about me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Arbcom is the appropriate venue for requesting desysopping. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship has very little weight as it is not even a guideline, let alone a policy. That said, there is nothing wrong with a discussion on another forum about whether an admin has abused their tools or has otherwise lost the trust of the community. I tend to agree with Jaguar and Jayron32 in the sense that it could be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor lowly editors get blocked for less aggressive behavior with no warning or process. Once blocked, they have to come crawling on hands and knees admitting wrong doing regardless of the facts. Once blocked once, Admins assume that the earlier block was correcr and use it to justify another block. Admins get a free pass from blockable offences and plenty of process. Admins need to have the trust of the community and it looks like Fram has lost that trust. Time to lift the "shield of protection" and subject them to the same standard of behavior as normal editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jaguar, if you are going through with this, you need to contextualize. For instance, you say "Misuse of tools"--yeah, that's the title of the AN section, which was closed with no consensus that indeed that is what happened (more likely the opposite), and no sanction. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment: I just notified Fram of this discussion since I didn't see the required notification created by anyone else. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Steel1943. Fram (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• As has been said by others, at least some of the diffs are simply wrong, others are very old (e.g. the Kumioko one is from 2013). E.g. he last one is one of me discussing with Carolus that his edits are unacceptable. Surprise, another editor since indef blocked them. You included e.g. this, which is a block of you for one week. Dr. Blofeld disagreed. How is that evidence of anything needing desysopping? You add Rich Farmbrough's arbcom case. Considering that it ended in a desysop and near-ban of Rich Farmbrough and not even an admonishment for me, how is it evidence of bullying or desysop-worthy behaviour? I can understand people complaining about me starting ArbCom cases which aren't ArbCom ready, fine. But when I notice problems with someone's editing, it gets discussed, it gets escalated to ANI and so on, and eventually it ends at ArbCom where the consensus is that yes, there were indeed serious problems, then the fact that a few people complain at Jimbo's talk page is not evidence that I was bullying or wrong.
• Basically, you are just throwing lots and lots of mud in the hope that it will stick and that people will see "oh, so many diffs, there must be something there". Stick to the ones that you truly believe to be problematic and which preferably aren't many years old, and then people can fairly judge if there is a case to answer here or not.
• But as long as your "case" includes things like "Bullying of Geo Swan" where I started an RfC/U in 2011 which got endorsed by 11 others, and where I have left Geo Swan alone after the end of the RfC/U, then you are simply grasping at straws. Fram (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed; I've (obviously) got serious concerns about your recent conduct, but when the alleged "evidence" includes such things as LavaBraon retires, citing a campaign of personal harassment (LavaBaron may well have cited a campaign of personal harassment, but I suspect his resignation had considerably more to do with the indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry), it's clear this is a malicious filing. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• So, to get things straight, this has been filed by an editor who retired three weeks ago, but has come back to attempt to get an admin who is almost always a net positive desysopped by posting multiple misleading and irrelevant links (the one regarding Ymblanter, where Fram was paraphrasing Ymblanter's comment, not saying it himself, is spectacularly incompetent)? Here's a bit of advice, Jaguar - retire again. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• While I wince at the tone of some of Fram's posts, I am uneasy at some of the evidence being presented which seems to lack context or involve blocks for repeated copyright violations (an action which I fully support). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Per NeilN just above, I also wince at some of Fram's recent actions (the block of MartinEvans was particularly heavy-handed), but I don't see this as a viable proposal. Advice to Jaguar; make a list of recent (<12 months old) diffs, save it as a text file, then take a one month wikibreak and if it still seems important to you, come back here. Metacomment; am I the only one slightly annoyed and confused by those who post retired notices then come back, while leaving the notice up? --John (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Metareply; I believe the message it's intended to convey is "This is such an important issue, I'll briefly emerge from retirement to comment because it needs the input of an elder statesman like me". There are very few people on Wikipedia who can pull off that king in the mountain stunt and be taken seriously; even Larry Sanger has been generally ignored when he's tried it. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  The retired tag is staying up. Once this all blows over I'll get back to my concrete life ;) JAGUAR 21:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh and while I'm here, the shameless playing on the "how terrible is Fram blocking MathSci because of MathSci's health" issue. That'll be the same MathSci who - very much to his credit - admitted after his block that "On the other hand I completely agree with User:Fram that I should not have reverted those postings, no matter what had been written. It was poor judgement on my part and I apologise without reservations for that." [29]. Why didn't you mention that, Jaguar? Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Why so vitriolic? Believe me I'll gladly stay retired. I can't stay on Wikipedia now—I've never felt so unmotivated for the project. The environment, the people, the way some like Fram agonise and demean others. I don't have anything personal against Fram at all—it's just his behaviour is so problematic that he's driven off a good number of editors. I realise I could have phrased some of the diffs better; it was a big task to gather all of them and some of which I wasn't familiar with (to my dismay I realised that LavaBaron was not the best example to use). I regret that the way I put all of those diffs together in one long list might come off as mud slinging, but I couldn't think of another way, so for this I apologise. Please feel free to remove or rephrase some of them if need be, but hopefully you get the gist that his social interactions are nothing but pleasant and he takes his role of purging Wikipedia of all discrepancies too far, even to an obsessive level. The trouble is that Fram is synonymous with Wikipedia itself in that nobody seems to care about writing content but rather reinforcing the already hostile climate this place has. The upside is that a lot of people have been disgruntled with Fram's behaviour so it's not an isolated issue but literally a project-wide one. There have been a couple of instances when I have agreed with Fram and respected his decisions, though I didn't agree with his "shoot 'em up style" with DYK I did like the fact that he brought to light the amount of errors the place contained.

  I had hoped to get the ball rolling here and prompt a discussion. I wasn't surprised to see this thread close and be told to take it to ArbCom. You must know that they can't do everything for us, in other words it seems to me an excuse to keep things the same around here and therefore keep Wikipedia the same. Please believe me when I say that I really didn't want to edit again, but I couldn't stand by and see him continue his usual antics and harass people. I really hated myself for coming back actually. I've got nothing to lose by trying to make a change because my reasons for retiring last month were mostly personal and to do with time constraints, not with how I feel about the project. JAGUAR 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - If the point of this thread was to present to Fram a "sense of the community" message that he should consider tempering his bluntness, I might well be onboard, but I do not think a call to desysop is warranted (besides being, as already pointed out, in the wrong venue). Fram quite frequently points out things that need to be pointed out, which is a very valuable service. Do I think they might help themselves by utilizing more honey and less vinegar? Yes, I do, but that's a matter of personal style, not of admin abuse. We have sysops who are the quintessence of politeness, and we have others that are much more blunt, and Fran falls on that side, but what's important to me is what they're being blunt about, and I value that. If Fram and I were friends in RL, I might take him aside and try to give him some fatherly advice, but that's not the same thing as seeking to take their bit away.
  My prediction is that if this were brought to ArbCom, the result would be an admonishment of some sort (and in the old days perhaps a civility parole), but that the Committee wouldn't find a pattern of abuse of the admin bit, and there would be no desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also for the record now that we're getting into the merits: I agree with a lot of what BMK and Black Kite above say. Fram is much more on the blunt end of the admin spectrum than I am, but overall I still feel he is a net-positive to the admin corps, and even if we had community-based desysoping, I would not support it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as setting a really bad precedent. The procedure for desysopping does not allow "transient majority votes" as one of the legitimate grounds for desysopping. Collect (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sure I'll be around if and when you decide to open a request for arbitration. I suggest you be more thorough if you do, and consider that a handful of damning diffs are more useful than an immense amount of ominous seeming noise. Until then I'll kindly save my dirty laundry for the laundromat, because that's where the cleaning up gets done. As a side note, for those here saying essentially "go the hell back to retirement" to various editors, you need to seriously consider your attitude. When we have someone accusing someone else of driving away editors, the appropriate response is not to try to drive them away, regardless of your opinion as to the merits of their complaint. GMG^talk 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Close Now The stated subject and purpose of this discussion is not within the competency of this board. If/when an arbcom case is opened I may (or may not) have something to say there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 6 March 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.

Repetitive and disruptive editing by User:Freikorp

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:Freikorp first started editing Y&R ANZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 21 May 2011, the very same day that a misleading and inaccurate article was published about the company. Since that day he has made it his personal agenda to remove accurate information on the page and replace with more misleading and libellous statements, accounting for over 25% of total edits to the page. I request that this editor not be allowed to edit this particular page. -- Peacenik162 (talk · contribs)

Considering you started editing just 10 days ago, maybe you shouldn't be editing that page either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Peacenik162: do you have any connection to the company? Keep in mind that you are required to disclose if you have been paid to edit Wikipedia. Beyond that, this is a content dispute that should be resolved through Wikipedia's dispute resolution, not by repeatedly reverting edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Where do I even start to respond to this hilarious incident report? Please read the talk page of the article in question. I would be surprised if Peacenik162's IP address doesn't match one of the IP vandals that has been targeting this page for years. I informed Peacenik162, in an extremely civil manner, why it was not appropriate to add self-published sources to promote the company in question. Peacenik162 did not reply to my comment on their talk page, though ignored my comments and added back the self-published sources promoting the company. This user has also repeatedly removed information referenced to reliable soruces that could be considered to not promote the company, such as that they lost a contract with the Australian Defence Force. This user has also repeatedly misleadingly used sources to make inaccurate statements which the sources do not back up. This user has refused to respond to comments on their talk page or the talk page of the article in question. I suggest they be permanently blocked from editing on the grounds they are a single-purpose account who has demonstrated they are completely unwilling to stop edit-warring or start discussing the issue on talk pages. Freikorp (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's funny because everything you accuse me of you have done yourself. You have been edit-warring with this page since 21 May 2011 and should be blocked. Peacenik162 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not even remotely true. I haven't added any self-published sources to promote an agenda; you have. I haven't removed referenced information without explanation; you have. I haven't ignored attempts to discuss the issue on talk pages; you have. Reverting an IP editor who has completely removed referenced information without adequate justification is not edit-warring. Once an edit gets reverted, if you still have a problem with it you discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Please read WP:BRD. You are the only person edit-warring as you repeatedly revert edits yet refuse to respond to attempts to communicate about the issue. I could go on but there's no point. I'm not replying to any further ludicrous accusations that get made here. I'll let the admins decide what is the most appropriate action. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Reverting an IP editor who has completely removed referenced information without adequate justification is not edit-warring." Don't bet the farm on that. There are exemptions from edit warring, but disruptive editing that falls short of obvious vandalism isn't exempt. You guys need to discuss this on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Peacenik162 for edit warring, but I think there's a possibility this is some kind of reputation management SPA. I guess we'll see what happens in 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

" some kind of reputation management SPA", I would bet the farm on that.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:18, 7 March 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 at WLNS-TV

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.

---

Between Spshu and Wcquidditch. [30] [31] [32] [33] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who did not intend to do anything to end up at ANI, and has generally tried to avoid partaking in edit wars… I don't know what to say… except that there is a separate noticeboard for edit warring. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: As someone who has worked with both of these editors and reviewed the diffs given, I don't see edit-warring here. I see two users stepping on each others toes a little bit with edit conflicts, but not edit-warring. I would warn Spshu on this edit, which is clearly from another time span (2015) and the user should know that. Wcquidditch caught it and corrected and updated further. Again, this is not anything warring, just editing and different editing styles too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Appearently, reported again at ANI/EW Spshu (talk) 14:23, 7 March 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.

Paperino Mago

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

---

Looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: [34]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 7 March 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.

Naj'entus

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.

---

Naj'entus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' behaviour on page Jaysh al-Islam since 5 March 23:46 seems totally unacceptable and out of line with Wikipedia principles: three times already (also 7 March 17:14 and 8 March 11:02) he reverted a (long) list of edits (twice it was all my work, the third time it was all work from three others) with very vague and insufficient motivation. I've strongly protested against that behaviour the first time, on Talk page, but that didn't seem to change his attitude at all. I suggest him to be blocked for editing on this article Jaysh al-Islam for three or seven days, with explanation that his (autocratic?) behaviour in those three edits does not reflect the basic Wikipedia principles. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I've explained my ctions on both the article's talk page, in edit summaries, and at the opposing party's talk page. Basically, it was a huge POV edit with many various inconsistencies, from removing any mention of the alleged chemical attack by claiming it was russian propaganda (even though the piece was sourced by Voice of America, which makes that claim a deliberate lie) to creating a whole new section with the heading "Anti-propaganda" (sic!) where all the criticism of the group from the original article was explained as russian/syrian propaganda. I have no deep feelings towards either of those parties, but removing well-sourced criticisms of the group from the article while explaining such removal with a deliberate lie strikes me as an attempt to white-wash an islamist terrorist group. I hope admins will find the time to read all the talkpages and edit summaries. Good luck! Naj'entus (talk) 18:33, 8 March 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.

forged dates

User talk:124.106.243.149 from Philippines keeps adding fictitious dates (usually days and months when undefined) to biographical articles, then linking the article with forged dates in the corresponding year articles. I warned the user twice, yet he/she plays deaf and keeps disrupting. I already encountered an extremely similar behaviour from a Filipino IP range in mid-2016, that time admin Bishonen apparently solved the problem with a temporary IP range block, see my talk page. Khruner (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd forgotten, but that's a helpful link to your archive, Khruner, thank you. To block 124.106.243.149 along with the IPs that were in question in July 2016, the range 124.106.240.0/21 would have to be blocked. That's not undoable, but I see here that actually only 124.106.243.149 has been active recently. Blocked for two weeks. If you should see similar editing from similar IPs during that time (or later for that matter), you're very welcome to report it on my page, and I'll block the range. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC).

Bodhi Peace's redirects

Bodhi Peace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created a startling number of redirects that have been found questionable and deleted at RfD; they don't seem to have changed their behavior based on this. They're also adding extremely questionable hatnotes, such as [35]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that some form of action needs to be taken regarding this. I discovered this discussion after I nominated a few redirects and a category recently created by Bodhi Peace. At the least, I think in regards to redirects, Bodhi Peace should be required to use WP:AFC/R for a determined amount of time. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them indefinitely. The simple way of dealing with this is to secure an agreement via a conditional unblock. Swarm ♠ 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:172.251.100.84

• 172.251.100.84 (talk · contribs)

Hello I come here, to ask for help, the aforementioned user insists on making constant editions without reaching a consensus, eliminates sources and information, and modifies multiple articles to his "taste" apparently. For example here, he eliminate sources and information to impose its edition. And that's the way it is in multiple actors articles. Although I have warned him about his editions, he did not seem to take it seriously. Here already several times i have reverted their editions. But this happens in multiple articles, then I do not know if it is a constant war of editions, since sometimes it lasts for days without editing.--Philip J Fry / talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here i will leave a list of several articles in which I have reversed their editions:

• Gabriel Soto
• Alejandra García (actress)
• Emmanuel Palomares
• Leticia Calderón

These are just some articles, there are more, if you want you can check the history of each one.--Philip J Fry / talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bad faith editing on a RfC

I recently opened up a RfC on an article (link here: Talk:Rod_Laver#RfC_on_article_intro_and_statement_"the_greatest_player_of_all_time"). A user, Fyunck(click), has repeatedly made personal attacks against me and made disparaging remarks about my edits. I have tried to follow WP:GF and WP:EQ and encouraged him to do the same. He has criticized me on other user's Talk pages as well (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=829170674&oldid=829008997). On the RfC, he is now, repeatedly, copy and pasting the same thing over and over again (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rod_Laver&diff=prev&oldid=829172294). This type of behavior is not new for this editor, he has also been banned for using sock puppets in the past (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreepRipper). Zerilous (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor of your obvious experience should know that RFC openers are explicitly told to "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Your opening statement was neither so I've removed it. If you can't see why, I suggest you enlist the help of other editors with drafting one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand and will re-word the intro to the RfC. I would like to discuss the actions of Fyunck(click) as I described above. Zerilous (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

They told you it was a bad RFC. You insisted on keeping it open (repeatedly). They pointed out it was a bad RFC (repeatedly). Was there anything else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't feel the language Fyunck(click) used was against WP:EQ or copy and pasting the same thing over and over again was inappropriate then no, there's nothing else. If you don't feel it relevant that he was banned in the past for using sock puppets to push his agenda then I guess we don't need to discuss that further either. His comments like "His lies are upsetting me and I have better things to do than worry about what this guy does to the article. I hope you got what you wanted." and "This is the worst RfC setup I have seen in probably the last 5 years." don't seem WP:EQ or WP:GF to me. Zerilous (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not relevant that ten years ago he/she ran two accounts editing on the same subject.[36] There is no evidence that he/she has done so since.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour at Talk:Battle of Szina

While I am not formally reporting an incident here, I believe that some sort of oversight might be appropriate with respect to interactions between @User:KIENGIR and @User:Ditinili. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like Ditinili has finally bowed out. I'll perform a formal closure with specific DR instructions. Swarm ♠ 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Warrenton905

Warrenton905 has removed vital information from the WPIR and WPER (FM) pages repeatedly, always with the edit summary "I updated the slogan and branding due to it being outdated and the station not using those anymore" or something along those lines. (Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4)

This is not the first time these time of information removal edits have popped up. It's always with the same fields removed, Callsign, Community of License, Airdate, Frequency, and Coordinates. (Diffs: 1, 2, 3. When I Warn4'd Warrenton905, the user responded that he/she "work[s] at the station" and "was asked by [their] General Manager to edit the information on the page because some of it is outdated." This is an outright lie. None of the information on the page is outdated and if so, why remove it, why not correct it? Also, if they work for the station, it's a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing the page anyway. The user continues by saying that they were trying to upload "the new updated logo" but couldn't because they are a "a new user" and haven't made it to "10 edits" yet. For a new user, they seem to know alot about Wikipedia. Also, WPER/WPIR doesn't have an "updated logo", so another outright lie.

After this exchange, Warrenton905 pulled the same stunt here on the WPER page a couple days later and today on the WPIR page. This is clearly a vandalism-only account and probably tied to other vandalism-only accounts. I would like to see this one blocked, and I'll file an SPI afterwards (one step at a time). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

I did this immediately after, but forget to mention it here, the user has been notified of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Been more than 12 hours, just lighting this up for eyeballs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Been more than 24 hours, little help, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:04 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: They made a single edit and you gave them a level four warning for vandalism. They've made a total of five edits and you've opened an ANI. You did not communicate with them literally at all, including responding to their post on your talk page, which was made almost two weeks ago. You are expected to communicate with other editors and try to resolve the issue prior to coming here. You have not. ANI is not the first step in the dispute resolution process. That's why this thread has gone, and will go nowhere. GMG^talk 20:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I saw a pattern, as shown, throw away accounts that vandalize radio station pages in a certain pattern, always with the same fields, and then disappear. Reappearing with a new account to do it again. Hence my Warn4 warning. The message on my talk page just seemed just like BS to me, honestly. What general manager truly cares about Wikipedia and asks their employee to remove information from it like the station's frequency. If the GM did ask the employee, how would a listener find the station if they couldn't find the frequency? That's why I didn't respond, it felt like "bull" to me. So when the same edits continued, after the Warn4, that kinda cemented my opinion that this was another throw away account and more vandalism. All I'm asking for is a block of the account and then I'll move onto an SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
2. If you have evidence for an SPI, then SPI comes first, block comes second.
3. People get told all the time from their employer to change the company's Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 20:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely the easiest way to deal with this is to semi-protect the two articles in question? Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WPER (FM) has been edited once. WPIR (FM) has been edited three times over the course of three weeks. Similarly for the other articles. Not enough to justify extended protection, and not enough for anything else to do any good. The easiest thing to do here, is probably to file an SPI to see if this is related, or summon a checkuser here if they're feeling generous. The IPs all seem to be from the same general area. Could be a number of potential explanations. GMG^talk 21:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: If a CU is feeling generous, then awesome. If so, then that would add to my lack of good faith. Neither WINC/WXBN, nor WPIR/WPER, nor WXLK share studios, owners or even transmitters. They are located in different parts of the state of Virginia. The three groups of stations are all owned by seperate companies, WPIR/WPER are non-commercial, the other three commercial. WINC/WXBN are located in Winchester (75 miles west of DC), WXLK 4 hours south in Roanoke), WPIR/WPER are right in the middle between DC, Charlottesville, Richmond and Fredericksburg. Just for the record, I live in Virginia. WINC/WXBN are owned by Centennial Broadcast, WPIR/WPER are owned by Positive Alternative Radio, and WXLK is owned by Mel Wheeler, Inc. There is no crossover between the three companies or stations. Again, this is why I had a lack of good faith approaching this user.

@Mjroots: While I do wish semi-protecting the articles was possible, GreenMeansGo is right, one edit here or there isn't gonna do it. If this was constant, then yeah. But this is one edit on one article, one edit on another. Doesn't qualify for semi-protection, only whack-a-mole. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Could be they were telling a half truth, and their employer would like for them to remove information from competitors. Could be multiple people and the same employer telling them the same thing. Could probably be a number of other explanations as well. I'll see if there are any CUs on IRC with too much coffee in them. If not I'll do the SPI particulars. GMG^talk 22:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadioPerson. GMG^talk 22:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, CU results are pretty meh. Save the link. If you see this again, add to the SPI (or ping me, I know SPI can be complicated), and it can strengthen the CU results as far as I understand. GMG^talk 00:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, dinner and errands: It could be, but basically all of the information removed is found on so many different sources it's silly to remove. But basically we are just guessing. Appreciate you doing the SPI. I'll userspace this and if I find anymore, then I'll bring it back across. Guess we can mark this as "closed" for the time being. My thanks to all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:42 on March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on AfD plus another issue

Hi all, can an uninvolved admin take a look at this AfD please, partly because of a (semi-)disruptive IP accusing people of canvassing and partly because of the nature of the AfD? The editor that initiated it yesterday is still a relatively new user, and may not be confident in content policies. Thanks all Nightfury 09:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I had interaction with 192.160.216.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder Audio as well. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really feel able to defend my actions unless someone can explain what "(semi-)disruptive" means. There was clearly canvassing going on, and if people don't like me pointing it out, why does {{subst:Canvassed|1=}} even exist? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore and 192.160.216.52 - Well as I see it the {{subst:Canvassed|1=}} template should be used where an editor has been clearly canvassed, and there is no point making a more detailed comment about it. But adding the template to every !vote when the issue of canvass had already been clearly discussed in detail on the page, with all the editors pinged in that discussion, means that there is no need to use that template.
In my view it had been made reasonably clear by a number of editors, including myself, that my decision to ping all the editors from three directly comparable AfD discussions was not canvassing, particularly as the majority of the editors I pinged, clearly disagree with my stance, and have !voted the opposite way to my prior !vote.
I think you have made a much bigger deal of this than was necessary, even if you disagree. A single clear comment explaining your view on the canvassing would have been better than snipping at all the !votes as the come in and arguing with me and three other editors who advised you to "drop the stick". Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified the IP of this discussion Nightfury, as you are required to do. IP, please stop adding the canvassing tags. Anyone can see the list of editors that were pinged. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

Thanks for the suggestion, NeilN. It's true that anyone can see the list of pings, but the way the pingees were chosen isn't so clear. In any case, I've tagged all the ones I'm concerned about, so I will indeed stop. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If more editors show up from that list please refrain adding additional tags. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I sure will! I feel as if I've sufficiently expressed my concern at this point. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, NeilN, it was just advised through IRC as well. Been a bit hectic this morning. Nightfury 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Done in by IRC once again. Does anyone do anything but canvas on IRC? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

192.160.216.52, If you're talking to me, I wasn't canvassing on IRC, I was asking for advice, now, can we knock off the subject of canvassing at all? Nightfury 14:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:SethAdam99

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.

---

Edit summaries such as [37] and [38] are uncalled for. While normally, this would just result in a {{uw-npa}} warning it appears that they have gone down this road many a time in the past. Their talk page history has numerous npa warnings that were already removed along with a previous PA block by Orangemike back in 2017. There are a few different talk pages messages that I have left regarding their edit including Talk:IWGP Intercontinental Championship that were ignored. Obviously warnings are not making an impact nor do they seem to be able to work in collaborative manner with others. So I'm forced to bring it here. --Majora (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks last March for personal attacks. This charming response in July. A handful of edits in August. Returns a couple days ago and starts up again with the attacks. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well justified block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is it always wrestling that brings out the most diehard and angry fanboys... --Tarage (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee, Tarage, could it possibly be that for years we've indulged those interested in professional wrestling and allowed them the latitude to create an entire suite of articles written in a manner that describes professional wrestling in a tone that ascribes reality and factuality to something that is obviously neither? John from Idegon (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As usual, John from Idegon identifies the salient point quite clearly. Many of these articles are a fetid walled garden. We should purge all "in universe" garbage from all professional wrestling articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 8 March 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.

Eddaido personal attack

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.

---

Obviously

-EEng

For Dlohcierekim -Bishonen

Hello. As someone on the receiving end of an unprovoked personal attack from Eddaido, it seems to me that this user has not learnt the lessons from the previous incident.

My complaint is the reply of "and you will see how daft your statement is" on his/her Talk page (diff).

Also, while of lesser severity, I think that "...will show why the new lead is so wrong" (diff) and "If you cannot see a difference you should not be making the changes you are" are unnecessarily personal (diff) and not in keeping with WP:CIVIL. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attack to call a daft edit a daft edit. As CIVIL has also shrunk in recent years such that swearing is now permissible, I think you have no chance of a complaint over "daft" going anywhere.

The underlying problem is that your change is a bad, inaccurate and daft one, as would be obvious from looking at the images, as you were advised to do. As you seem incapable of seeing the point despite being told it repeatedly, a landau is not "a horse-drawn carriage or car where a fixed roof covers the driver." There is no covering, fixed or otherwise, over the driver.Counter-examples may exist, but it's certainly not a defining characteristic of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thus it has been since the days off my youth. And if I might add, adding pix of actors from the days of my youth to each thread would make threads easier to find.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This thread is going to the dog(s).--Dlohcierlibra (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any personal attacks. Telling someone who is doing the wrong thing "You are doing the wrong thing" is not personal, and not an attack. If people are telling you "You are doing the wrong thing", don't come to tattle on them. Instead, stop doing the thing. --Jayron32 13:37, 8 March 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.

---

The following was previously posted and disappeared without a response. I continue to see pre- and post-nominals that are not honorifics (but that reflect stable commitment to a religious superior) reverted by John from Idegon. I repeat below my previous request which disappeared without a response, and am hereby notifying @John from Idegon: of the reopening.

John from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Jzsj (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it disappeared because it's a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj: Your previous discussion is here. It was moved to AN and archived approximately a week ago. Nightfury 12:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

When you mention someone on this board, you are required to notify them on their talk page. That is stated at the top of this page and in the edit window in big bold letters. You did not do that. The consensus was quite clear that the aforementioned discussion would not be reopened and that you should open a discussion at either WP:MOSor the village pump. Could someone please close this? John from Idegon (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297#Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening. Except for jzsj, the other editors in that conversation agreed that Jzsj was welcome to open a new RFC at WT:MOS or a similar venue. I don't think John's close needs further review here. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang

Belay that request for closure, matey!

-EEng

Please belay my request for closing this. Jzsj has now moved his battle from one high school article to another. I'm not going to waste another 6 weeks of my life over this. He recently added a set of Catholic titles and post nominals at a second article, where I reverted him. He opened a discussion on the talk and prior to receiving any response, he re-added them here. Aren't there Arbcom Discretionary sanctions available for edit warring over MOS issues? Minimumly, I'd like to see him placed under those. I'll reference the AN discussion above, and Talk: Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School as further evidence of the impossibility of dealing with this editor and further propose a topic ban from articles relating to education. I'm headed out right now, but I'll add further evidence tonight. He is totally unable to edit neutrally on a school article. He's bent on turning them all into PR pieces for Catholic education. John from Idegon (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please consider a topic ban. Jzsj is now contemplating whether an edit war is the means to get his way and he continues his canvassing of other editors on the matter ([39], [40], [41]), all the while ignoring that fact that he has been told ad nauseam that the issue is a WP:MOS one and the discussion properly belongs there. 32.218.36.14 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And Jzsj continues to edit war here. Perhaps a block is in order to get his attention? John from Idegon (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't appear at that edit, and prior to Jan 12 when this started I had fewer than a half dozen reverts in 45 months of work on Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Enough, already! Jzsj is also edit warring at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School here. Between his musings mentioned above by 32.218 about edit warring being the way to go, and his battleground mindset clearly shown in the diff from TonyBallioni's talk also cited by 32, it's time to apply the brakes. There is enough evidence cited here for an immediate block for WP:TE. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And more ongoing edit-warring here. John from Idegon (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I endorse John from Idegon's call for a boomerang, and look forward to more evidence. I am somewhat involved with the content dispute so must rely on another administrator to use the tools. Jzsj is a tendentious and tenacious editor and a Catholic priest who is doggedly determined to add promotional content to his pet Catholic high school articles against consensus. He is also violating the Manual of Style by adding these prenomials and post-nomials to Catholic clergy. We do not call physicians "Dr. Katherine Smith" or rabbis "Rabbi Steven Goldstein" or academics "Jane Jones, PhD", or lawyers "Bill Johnston, Esq." but Catholic priest Jzsj insists on this type of usage for Catholic priests. Jzsj sees our policy on consensus as just an inconvenient hiccup to be overcome in their ongoing campaign of promotionalism. He needs to be taught that we take our policies seriously. As for John from Idegon, he has shown the patience of Job in dealing with this disruption for many weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You have never responded to my repeated point that the pre- and post-nominals which I don't want to see removed from so many Wikipedia articles (not of my doing) are not the honorifics that you keep mentioning but, unlike Rabbi, that place clergy and religious permanently under a bishop or religious superior, a succinct way of indicating the ongoing control of the school by a diocese or religious congregation. Ironically, your own alma mater has the honorific "SJ" after the president's name in the infobox (just an illustration of how common such religious post-nominals are). Jzsj (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You have never responded to my repeated point...

That's a straight-up falsehood. Here, let me repeat myself;

No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I could quote Canon law as to the fact that Bishops assign and reassign priests at will, as do religious superiors, if that is all you want. Jzsj (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You want to carve out a special exemption from our manual of style AND our absolutely firm requirement of explicit sources. That's really not going to fly here. --Calton | Talk 08:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This strikes me as awfully close to being canvassing by Jzsj. --Calton | Talk 09:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It alerts all parties in a discussion, through a neutral statement. Jzsj (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cristo Rey Jesuit High School (Chicago) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With regret, I'm forced to ask the community to impose a topic ban on Jzsj. I'm asking for this ban on articles related to schools of all levels and articles related to education. My apologies for the length, but this is a complicated issue ongoing since December.

I'm asking for this due to his repeated WP:TE on multiple articles, specifically: WP:POV, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVAS, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PROMO. There appear to be WP:CIR issues as well, at least in part illustrated by his opening of this section after having commented ad nauseum at AN after the thread he was enquiring about was moved there.

I've been editing sociopolitical geographic topics in the US solidly for 6 years. I've only encountered one other editor who has been so tendentious. Private schools in the US are a topic area ripe for promotional abuse, as they are businesses competing against a free government funded oligopoly. For whatever reason, Jzsj seems incapable of discerning between information useful to our worldwide audience and information that is promotional or only useful to a narrow audience (devout Catholics).

Promo/POV pushing

• "I would defend all the prominent links, which help those deciding on a school or whether to support the model, so that they realize how successful this model has actually been."
• Here arguing that the purpose of an encyclopedia article on a school is to at least in part promote it
• puffery
• Created several more poorly sourced and promo toned articles on Cristo Rey schools since the first of the year, including this gem, featuring the following in the lede: "Cristo Rey OKC is a Roman Catholic, private high school founded by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City in 2018 to provide college preparatory education to students who could not otherwise access it." Seriously? They don't have public schools in Oklahoma City? Oklahoma has some strange law requiring a Catholic education in order to attend college?

IDHT

• Just look to Talk: Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Or the AN discussion referenced above. Or any of the discussions he started at WT:WPSCH. All of which also speak to BATTLE, FORUMSHOP and CIR.

And I'm sorry, but it's 4am in Idegon and I cannot waste any more time on this. Please consider the diffs added by 32.218 above also. If anyone wants further diffs, ask. John from Idegon (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - as proposer. John from Idegon (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It is with great reluctance that I support a topic ban. Jzsj has made some meaningfull contributions, but struggles policies like WP:V, WP:PROMO and WP:INDEPENDENT, despite frequent warnings. I would be open to allowing Jzsj to continue to improve school articles via articles for creation and edit requests. If Jzsj demonstrates that he is willing and able to abide by our content polcies, we can consider an early end to the topic ban. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - He's clearly been editing against consensus and fighting the same fight past the point where it is useful. --Jayron32 13:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've created over 435 articles in the last 4 years and I've never encountered anything like this before. @John from Idegon: and a few who follow his lead have opposed what I can defend as good additions to the Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School article. Please check these out at that talk page. With the few editors who have come to my defense, we need to defend each of these additions that are contrary to what John would like to have but not to any Wikipedia guidelines. Approving of John's agenda would do harm to what others have done in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Jzsj (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you, please, specify what is the "agenda" of John from Idegon? Also, could you, please, be more specific about the "harm" that would befall Wikipedia articles if that "agenda" (or potentially your topic ban) were "approved"? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please check the top of this section on #Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening for my explanation of the main issue here; to specify why others insist on lumping religious identifiers with honorifics would be a judgment call. The harm would be determined by how many of the hundreds of infoboxes are reverted in pursuit of the "etc." I refer to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals. @The Gnome: Jzsj (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Jzsj's lengthy (over two-month) WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:IDHT behavior should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. His misleading representations, such as above (I counted more than a dozen different editors who opposed his proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School), and his disrespect for other editors demonstrate that he is incapable of acting in the collegiate, collaborative manner needed on Wikipedia. 32.218.152.54 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I'd think that having a different opinion or viewpoint than other Wikipedia contributors is not to be condemned in any way, but on the contrary, welcome and appreciated. It's one thing to go against rules and/or consensus, but you do not say that. You say that Jzsj's proposals were opposed by "more than a dozen others" but where's the problem with that? I'm not saying Jzsj is innocent on the basis of that. He may well be guilty of all those infractions and should be TPd. I'm saying that the reason you give, at least the way your phrased it, seems a bit weak, the way I read it. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Please make note of Jzsj's contributions today, where he has opened a DRN on Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School and sent invites to it to editors of his selection. None to me, none to Meters, none to Billhpike. More WP:CANVAS, more WP:CIR. FYI, I do not think DRN will accept a case when the proposer is at ANI. Also, Jzsj, please do not ping me unless you require a reply. You've wasted quite enough of my time. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You absented yourself from that discussion (of #4) on the page, as did Meters, and Billhpike. . I pinged only those who commented on proposal 4, under #4 on the page. Jzsj (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - User:John from Idegon is right about DRN. I closed the request because it was already at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems like the right move. 2604:2000:E016:A700:A8E0:8ADB:D938:B53B (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, for the reasons I explained in the section immediately above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support His constant ignoring of consensus by rererestarting discussions and rerereadding info to Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is tedious and disruptive. Sorry, there is no other way than a topic ban, long term. The Banner talk 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure a topic ban is the best recourse for an editor who despises so many of our guidelines and policies, and seemingly the very character of Wikipedia. I'd recommend stronger measures, such as a three-month block. But if a topic ban is what most people recommend (and so far everybody who has commented here does recommend it, except naturally enough Jzsj himself), I'll support it too. Indefinite, with the option to appeal in six months. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC).

If you read much of Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School you'll see who deals respectfully with those who bully and threaten him. And when I went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to get a neutral opinion on Proposal #4 at the NDCRHS talk page, the discussion was soon closed after I received a statement of support there. And I was supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Structure where we reads: "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school?" Jzsj (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, the key word here seems to be "explain." We are not meant, as contributors, to proffer our own viewpoint, or some primary-source self-promoting material, or third-party, biased texts. In my view, we should strive to edit, i.e. explain, without bias and guided by acceptable sources. A monumental task, if you ask me, but that's the game. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As to Proposal #4, it had eleven references about half of which are independent, and the other material can be substantiated for verifiability if that is all that's being asked. Jzsj (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I am relatively new to the issues at Notre Dame school. Looking at the Talkpage, it appears after a few months of contentious editing, some might say "enthusiastic", JZSJ has finally embraced our policies and his behavior indicates a willingness to work toward consensus. I submit these recent events for your review:

1. JZSJ submits a proposal on the Talk page [42]
2. Version #4 draws interest from editors and not-voting results in 3-3 deadlock i.e. NO CONSENSUS [43]
3. Yours truly requests a close of that discussion at WP:ANRFC [44]
4. The request for a closing at admin at WP:ANRFC goes unfulfilled after two weeks!
5. In order to arrive at a consensus--JZSJ posts a new request for review by an uninvolved editor at WP:DRN [45]

In conclusion, JZSJ's recent conduct has been focused primarily on having an uninvolved editor break the No Consensus at the article. A topic ban in this case would be excessive and grossly punitive. What is really indicated in this case is a review by an uninvolved editor in what is clearly a content dispute. – Lionel^(talk) 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is also about an editor who refuses to accept consensus, who is canvassing and is restarting every discussion with an outcome he dies not like, multiple times. Even his DRN-request was so selective that his "friends" were invited to join the discussion while most of his "non-friends" were left out. He will be lucky with a topic ban instead of a block. The Banner talk 08:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, and hope it is broadly construed, including BLPs of individuals associated with schools and education. It's a well-identified issue. POV pushing not nipped here will eventually land up at Arbcom, and in the meanwhile, waste hundreds of hours of resolution effort of our editors. Lourdes 01:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Jzsj, can you really not just let this issue go? You're clearly not winning. You may be barely scraping by without a topic ban or an outright block. Honestly, some things just aren't worth the effort, even if you firmly believe the other side is wrong, when you could be making improvements somewhere else. If it's that big of a deal, then revisit it in six months or a year and see if opinions have changed. On a collaborative project like this, sometimes giving up is a virtue. GMG^talk 01:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would hope that here the decision would be made not on the basis of numbers: it's notable that so many who support John have found this place so quickly, while those who have supported me (I don't have a team to work with) have not found it. No one is explaining why my additions would not respond to this guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Structure "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school?" Then there is the question of pre- and post-nominals where my several reasons have never been addressed. I fear how some of the guidelines at Schools Project are being used to justify an agenda that goes beyond the guidelines. Jzsj (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you're probably going to be topic banned and cut off from the issue all together if you don't move on and learn to let things go. GMG^talk 02:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If Jzsj were to make credible assurances that he will comply with WP:V, WP:PROMO, WP:INDEPENDENT and MOS:POSTNOM, I would consider changing my !v. He's made significant contributions in topic areas for which Wikipedia has traditionally had weak coverage and I would be sad to see him topic banned. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To say that I'm guilty of promo or ignore verifiability and independent sources is just not true: can you show that these have actually occurred and are not just unsubstantiated charges? I hope that whoever reviews this ban issue takes time to sort through all the evidence, including the closing of the pre- and post-nominals discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals, just when the discussion was turning in favor of my proposal. Jzsj (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed everything extensively. You need to quickly move on from these topics. The argument of supporting edits using reliable sources cannot hold water when the edits are uniquely pov oriented. I'm not saying that you're a tendentious editor - as a neutral editor, it seems to me that your editing orientations are apparently quite influenced by your overall background. Nothing wrong with it – but in the same way as I stay away broadly from articles of musicians, you need to move on. Lourdes 03:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider the issue of pre- and post-nominals an important issue that affects hundreds of articles not of my making, now and into the future. If I abandon the issue can I be assured that others will take it up? I suggest that some don't seem to understand the distinction that's being discussed. Jzsj (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been invited to open a discussion about MOS:POSTNOM at WT:MOS. Why not start an RFC there and see what consensus emerges? Neither individual school article talk pages nor WT:WPSCHOOLS are the appropriate place for such a discussion. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear how you find these pre- and post-nominals banned at MOS:POSTNOM at WT:MOS. The point I've been making from the start is that the Schools Project adds an "etc." to what MOS:POSTNOM at WT:MOS say, and perhaps on this basis the very active chief contributor to the Schools Project is proposing removing these from infoboxes, confusing them with honorifics. Jzsj (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BillHPike. The suggestion to you to move on from the issue comes with no assurance from the community that others will take up your cause. These are not assurances the community needs to give or will even entertain. Your continued involvement into the issue is being perceived as disruptive, as is evident here. If you don't give reassurances of moving on, with no attached conditions, you might not even be able to start an Rfc on the topic in the future. Why waste away your editing background like this? It's not worth it. Lourdes 03:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per the above - Editor obviously cannot school-related articles without causing issues so as such topic banning would be the best move ... well either that or the banhammer. –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - most reluctantly. I have also tried at times to mediate on these issues but without success. I certainly do not believe a full block would be necessary, but we would have to resort to that if the topic ban is breached. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is far beyond any reasonable attempt to reach consensus. I agree with the various behavioral links already mentioned, and I'll add WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NPA. This has been a huge time sink for many editors, and I am disheartened to see Jzsj not only restarting these edits on Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School now that the second protection has ended, but making similar edits on other school pages. Meters (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A small correction. The article was fully protected three times in February. John from Idegon (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support The article should have one official external link to the school website where fluffy information about activities and staffing belongs. It is WP:UNDUE in an article here, and pushing the point has gone on long enough. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, at minimum. Both per general disruption and unwillingness to listen -- or pretending not to have heard -- to the answers to "questions" he keeps asking. --Calton | Talk 08:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, and something I posted on his User Talk page, to no apparent avail:

You know, the old schtick of pretending not to understand is well-worn enough around here to get its own shortcut: WP:IDHT. As does the notion that if one argues and argues and argues and uses JUST the right major words one can achieve rhetorical victory: WP:WIKILAWYERING.

Wikipedia is NOT a hierarchical system with top-down imposed rules. Its rules, procedures, ethos, guidelines, practices, restrictions, and bureaucracy evolved into their present shape by group consensus and decision-making, based around the basic goal of creating a universal, neutral, accessible general encyclopedia. If you run afoul of that goal with your own agenda, disrupt the work, and continually refuse to conform to the values of the community, the community at some point has every right to -- and will -- decide you're a net negative, and remove you from the project, and all the appeal to regulations and legalistic interpretation won't stop that. --13:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 09:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, with reluctance and regret – I tried warning him privately what would happen if this ended up here, and here it is. I'm also not entirely sure that this is the best remedy. A question: if we don't want religious promotion and WP:IDHT in articles on schools, where do we want it? Side note: everyone has the right to whatever religious belief they choose, but they should leave it at the door with their shoes when they come in here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 9 March 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 with problematic edit history needs attention.

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.

---

Chasen121 has an edit history entirely dedicated to trying to disprove a court case using horrible English and very little evidence, including saying that sources are self-published, despite them obviously being otherwise. I think that this is a gross case of WP:LISTEN. EMachine03 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a coincidence that our article BES Utilities says:

In January 2018, BES Utilities successfully concluded a High Court case against two men, accusing them of waging a three-year hate campaign against the company.[10] The online hate campaign was believed to have been designed to damage BES and its reputation, by way of publishing articles including abusive and homophobic images with the intention of humiliating the directors, employees and legal representatives.[11]

This appears to be a continuation of that campaign. I would think an indef block of Chasen121 as a NOTHERE SPA and NPOV-violator would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've modified the material in both articles. It was absolutely over-the-top and not even supported by the sources. The new editor made a request to remove the material on the Talk page of one of the articles back in mid-February. Primefac agreed as did another editor. Primefac actually removed the material. How can this be a case of not listening. No one has even attempted to talk to the user. Their conduct hasn't been optimal, but Wikipedia's response has been underwhelming.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked Chasen121 for sock puppetry...User:Opps123 + WP:NOTHERE. Evidence on Functionaries email list was considered.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd behavioural comparison  :) Opps123 repeatedly adds' material to Andrew Pulley...Chasen121 repeatedly removes it. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The material added is against the company and one of its officers. The material removed/modified is against those two men that are hounding the company. Makes perfect sense. The hounds are trying damage control.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:26, 8 March 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.

Political agenda editor "INDICATOR2018" (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.

---

A previous discussion about User:INDICATOR2018 was just archived with no admin input or action, and predictably this user's edit warring and political agenda editing continues...

• WeChat – seven additional reverts over the past couple days to push the "censorship" section further down the page. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
• One Belt One Road Initiative – more edit warring (1, 2, 3)
• Continuing campaign to subtly assert PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. This kind of thing is needlessly contentious and disruptive.

• At South Korea–Taiwan relations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• at List of island countries

• Continuing campaign to assert PRC sovereignty over Hong Kong (1, 2, 3, 4)
• Continuing campaign to assert PRC sovereignty over Macao (1)
• At Anti-Rightist Campaign, censorship of [ironically] coverage of censorship in China, and frivolous "Better source needed" tagging of a University of Hong Kong citation. Edit warring over this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
• Unreferenced infobox addition that the Hong Kong Economic Journal is part of the "pan-democracy camp"
• A ridiculous series of edits to Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP) that allege the website is "anti China" and engages in "content theft", yet these claims appear to constitute WP:OR. In the absence of any secondary sources attesting to these claims, this user added citations to a couple HKFP news pieces as well as Ming Pao and Apple Daily which HKFP supposedly plagiarised. Yet the HKFP pieces have links to the respective Apple Daily and Ming Pao articles. The citation to the column in HK01 is a misrepresentation of that source.
• Edit warring at someone's own talk page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Anyway. Wikipedia not censored, and as such, it has a hell of a lot that patriotic types would consider "anti-China" [hint: anything that doesn't align with the viewpoint of the Chinese government is "anti-China" in the minds of political agenda editors]. So admin either need to act on this sort of thing, or Wikipedia's neutral POV, credibility, and general utility as a source of information will continue to be chipped away by this sort of low-level political agenda editing. This is an encyclopedia, not China Daily. Citobun (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Citobun, I challenge you to reassess those edits in an objective way before again making misleading accusations against me. It simply seems that all the edits I made are "political agenda" to you. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that no admins have yet acted on my edits is a also demonstration that your accusations against me are simply not recognized. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Because this user has harassed me, I would like to express here the fact that this user uses multiple IPs to edit the same page.This does not mean that I agree or disagree with this topic.This only represents the user makes me feel bad so I would like to provide some evidence.In fact he does not deny the use of multiple accounts and edit wars.I would like to add two links to the content that he removed. Perhaps it will make this topic clearer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AINDICATOR2018&type=revision&diff=828885974&oldid=828680003

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AINDICATOR2018&type=revision&diff=829407468&oldid=829383059

--O1lI0 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

For the above discussion, please see User talk:INDICATOR2018 for further information. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And it is notable that O1lI0 has also attacked me through this edit, where he/she called me "A bad guy ". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked INDICATOR2018 for three days, for edit-warring, editing to promote a point of view, and other disruptive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

About https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INDICATOR2018&diff=829382999&oldid=829382977 this one

@O1lI0: I would also like to add that groundless warnings like this one are nothing but blatant harassment. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that you are out of the topic(Political agenda editor "INDICATOR2018" (II)). Second, you can open another topic to talk about this matter.Third, I have already helped you to open the topic.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Finally I think this link can end this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AINDICATOR2018&type=revision&diff=829383059&oldid=829382999 Unless you think I'm testing your talk page.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

TIL user warnings are blatant harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 09:46, 9 March 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:Delilahinthehood

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

---

Hello, I would love some help communicating with relatively new user Delilahinthehood, who continues to de-alphabetize lists and make other unnecessary/nonconstructive edits (nearly all of which have been reverted by myself of other editors).

I have been trying to get the user's attention for weeks, and I suppose now I have, as she has made a legal threat on her talk page. This is primarily what I need help with, as I know such statements are inappropriate, but I don't have the experience or authority to handle it. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I laid a warning on her, but generally NLT people get blocked before I finish typing here.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"I WILL SUE YOU FOR THREATENING ME" seems like an unmistakable legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Threating"??? I feel like this person's native language is not English. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And a threat as well. I think she ran off.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No comment on which dialect of 'merican she speaks.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd wanted to give her time to respond, but she edits infrequently. Honestly, I can't see where Jessicapierce threated her.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably because she didn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely never threatened her in any way. All my attempts at communicating with her remain on her talk page as it is now. I'm not super proud of the frustrated tone I took, and maybe that's what she's reacting to, or misinterpreting. Thank you all for your help. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recommend indef block. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That legal threat, tho. Talk about your zero to sixty... The phrase "temperamentally unsuited to this community" comes to mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It is  Done.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC) If she hates feedback, just wait till she sees the block notice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:42, 9 March 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.

47.202.22.186

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.

---

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#47.202.22.186, when you ask someone to stop twice and call them to the Administrators' noticeboard and they keep doing the same edits despite these three requests,[46] do you still maintain that they shouldn't be blocked? This IP is also spamming wikipedia with a lot of uncited and silly statements like the number of great-great-great-grandchildren people have[47]. It's the same IP who ignored all the warnings at User talk:47.199.155.41. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, but left a (hopefully) tactful message as I believe they have been editing in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall leave another message at the talk page. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:08, 9 March 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 repeatedly adding unsourced claims to a BLP

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:Subu hazarika has been repeatedly adding unsourced claims to Raftaar (rapper), a BLP, after many warnings. After a level 4 warning about this, editor logged out and made this anonymous addition, identical to previous unsourced additions made while logged in: [48], [49]. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Registered editor blocked for 72 hours, article semied for a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 9 March 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:NOTHERE

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.

---

Rowan YT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Manic selfpromotion by selfproclaimed Facebook entrepreneur. Bad case of WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, draft page deleted and salted, as it had been repeatedly recreated. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 10 March 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:Onward&Upward

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 created the page John Laurence. User:Onward&Upward who has been on Wikipedia since June 2008 claims to be related to John Laurence, see: [50] and therefore is not a neutral writer. Despite having been on Wikipedia since 2008, Onward&Upward is not familiar with the most basic policies and procedures, such as providing WP:RS (something which I pointed out to him/her on 1 February: [51] nor how to reference despite seeing numerous examples of how to do this on the page.

My primary source material was John Laurence's book, the Cat from Hue, which as I explained to him/her I enjoyed sufficiently to start the page about Laurence, see [52]. As the book focuses primarily on Laurence's Vietnam reporting that is what I included in the page. The page is about John Laurence's life and not about the Vietnam War generally or other unrelated matters, such as whether or not Sam Castan received a posthumous medal. I selected events in which Laurence played a key role such as his reporting of many battles including A Sau, Con Thien and Hue. In relation to Laurence's report on the interview with Lt Col House, following the Battle of A Sau (which Onward&Upward repeatedly tries to Americanize to the Battle of A Shau), the official Marines history states that the interview "caused some furor" and that Secretary of Defense McNamara requested an investigation into "unfavorable TV and press releases in the U.S.", which I abbreviated into saying this caused "outrage", User:Onward&Upward claims that this somehow denigrates Laurence or makes me an apologist for the US military. As Laurence was friends with many of the other somewhat famous young Vietnam War journalists such as Tim Page, I included a mention of "Frankie's House" (which itself has a Wikipedia page about the TV series), Laurence himself discusses the frequent marijuana use there, but Onward&Upward repeatedly tried to remove all reference to this: [53], [54], [55] on the basis that I was implying that Laurence was a drug addict. I referred Onward&Upward to Laurence's book and Tim Page's book that both speak to the frequent marijuana use here: [56], Onward&Upward has repeatedly deleted the reference to Tim Page's book: [57].

I asked Onward&Upward to focus on productive edits rather than edit warring with me over trivial points such as who actually lived at Frankie's House and to learn to reference properly: [58]. Onward&Upward has added additional information regarding Laurence's career outside of Vietnam, but in several cases has only provided references for the existence of certain events (e.g. DNC 1968 and the Chicago Seven trial [59]) and not Laurence's reporting of them which is inadequate. In all cases Onward&Upward has made no effort whatsoever to reference sources properly which has become completely frustrating for me tidying these up.

Yesterday Onward&Upward wrote the following on the John Laurence Talk Page [60]. I responded saying that I did not believe that I have initiated any "impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults", rather these started with Onward&Upward's initial comment on my Talk page on 21 February here: [61] and have continued up to and including the comments above questioning my knowledge and integrity. I will readily admit that my edit summaries have become more curt as I continue to revert Onward&Upward's edits which do not accord with WP policies and procedures. Onward&Upward cannot describe him/herself as a "newcomer" and is not entitled to rely on the indulgence that might be granted to a newbie, rather s/he has persistently ignored WP policies and procedures, does not adopt WP:NPOV and has done everything possible to sanitise any perceived criticism of John Laurence. I also pointed out that Wikipedia was different from WikiLeaks which s/he referred to in the original post and received this response: [62]. Onward&Upward then continued his/her insults by posting this: [63] on my Talk Page, starting with "So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away." What possible relevance is my ethnicity or location? None of which is correct btw. I ignored that post and then noted this pseudo-apology: [64] which starts as an apology but then quickly becomes another attack on me.

Onward&Upward continues to revise the John Laurence page, providing some useful but poorly referenced information and some which is poorly written or irrelevant, e.g. what is the relevance to Laurence of Sam Castan being awarded an Army Commendation Medal which Onward&Upward has once again reinserted: [65]. As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Castan was Laurence's best friend when he was killed. That his actions earned him a medal from Gen. William Westmoreland seems relevant. Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You lost me at My primary source material was John Laurence's book, the Cat from Hue. How could you possibly think that the subject's own autobiography is appropriate as the source for a biographical article (and not just cited in passing for a quote from the subject, but cited twelve times)? ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It was the starting point, I tried to add other WP:RS as I went along. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by the use of a published autobiography, per se. It may be self written (and maybe not even so, could be a ghost writer), but that doesn't mean it is self published, and presuming it is a) published by a reputible publishing house with a repuation for good work and b) judiciously used and properly cited (such as explicit citation style like "according to his autobiography..."), it's fine as a starting point. --Jayron32 14:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Any good biography should include reference to content in the subject's autobiography. Peacock (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Laurence's book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story," is a memoir not an autobiography. Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his/her attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that was a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. I will prove this and ask that Mztourist be blocked from any further editing on the Laurence biography. He/she was modifying scenes from Laurence's memoir of the Vietnam War, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story," while adding his own inflammatory language to accomplish what was amounting to a mean, dishonest hatchet job on Laurence's reputation. I interfered by trying to edit Mztourist's nasty work at an early stage and he has replied by attempting here to get me banned. His excuse is that I was not familiar with the Wikipedia procedure of referencing edits via WP:RS and causing him to "edit war with me. ("As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her.")

The fact that I joined Wikipedia in 2008 does not mean I had to learn the intricacies of the editing procedure. Until this month, I have used Wikipedia regularly as a reference source (and been a generous donor to its foundation). That I am a member of the Laurence family does not make me unable to be fair, impartial and objective. It has taken a week or so for me to learn WP:RS and ref well enough to use correctly, and I am now confident of being able to maintain historical accuracy and objectivity in that way. So much for Mztourist's impolite criticism of this editing newbie.

Hatting wall o'text as description of content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Laurence, who is 78 years old and very much alive, has been given the highest praise for his work over the past 50 years, especially in Vietnam during the war there, and has received countless awards for his journalism, authorship and documentary filmmaking. His book, "The Cat from Hue," received the Cornelius Ryan Award for "best non-fiction book on international affairs" by the Overseas Press Club of America, the only book award it makes annually. Reviews of the book were 100% positive and included most of the major newspapers in the United States as well as several magazines. That Mztourist is using Laurence's own book with which to attack his reputation as a journalist is less ironic than it is a clear indication of his ulterior motives. Here's how he did it: After creating the new John Laurence page on 22 January 2018 with basic information about where he was born, year of birth and education, on 24 January Mztourist added two incidents taken from "The Cat from Hue." In a post of only 12 lines to describe Laurence's first 10 months in Vietnam in 1965-66, a period which occupies 340 pages in the book, he wrote: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Large quantities of drugs? What's that supposed to mean if not that Laurence socialized among a group of drug addicts? Later, when I discovered the new page, an edit war ensued over the reference to "large quantities of drugs" and the fact that Mztourist could not figure out who lived in the house and when. You would have to read the 340 pages of the book to understand that Laurence was NOT a frequent visitor to Frankie's House, only an occasional one (because he was not invited often), that only marijuana was smoked there and not "large quantities of drugs," and that the house was inhabited by several other well-known, accomplished journalists than those he mentioned. All are included in the book. One of them was Sam Castan, a senior editor at LOOK magazine and Laurence's close friend. He received a medal for his courage in saving the lives of three American soldiers at the cost of his own. That Castan was the only civilian journalist to receive a medal during the war (from General Westmoreland the overall commander), seemed to me to be worth including in a paragraph about Frankie's House. Especially if Mztourist insisted on disparaging everyone in the house for using "large quantities of drugs." But he struck out Castan's name every time I included it. The whole paragraph about Frankie's House should be deleted. The second incident Mztourist included in his 12 line summary of Laurence's tour of Vietnam in 1965-66 is this: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF.[2]" Mztourist used a book by a Marine Corps historian for this account rather than Laurence's first person description of what happened. I objected to the use of the phrase "the story caused outrage when broadcast" in such a general way. It is clear from Laurence's account that the incident did not cause outrage in the general public or in the rank and file in Vietnam. No disciplinary action was taken against him. The fact is that a few Marine and Army generals were upset because Lt. Col. House told the story on-camera and that it was broadcast on CBS News. A reading of the book shows that's what happened. Mztourist and I argued over edits because the way he portrayed the incident it looks like criticism of Laurence for reporting the story. But that was it. There is nothing more in Mztourist's biography about the often incredible events that Laurence saw and reported in 1965-66, including being wounded with his soundman in a battle. In all the reviews of "The Cat from Hue," I can find no mention of the two incidents Mztourist chooses to include. It gets worse. The next day, 25 January, he adds this to the original 12 lines: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program".[1]:123-5 However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a Cambodian village, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there.[1]:293" "...he became more cynical." Cynical? More cyncial? There is not a word in the book to suggest that Laurence was cynical. The man is not a cynic. He is a warm and kind-hearted person. His writing shines with his humanitarian beliefs. His spiritual nature is on every page. The edit war between Mztourist and I began with the words "more cyncial" in this paragraph and continued when I tried to make clear that the deaths and wounding of American soldiers were part of the equation. Laurence has been described as "the best television reporter of the war" and also "the best war reporter of his generation." (Esquire magazine (October, 2003)). But nothing in Mztourist's biography reflects that. I started trying to make edits to Mztourist's work for the first time on 30 January and added over 3,000 bytes of new information. Neither of us made any edits between 2 and 13 February as I struggled to learn the methodology of using Wikipedia's software. Throughout the month of February, Mztourist has been belittling me for not using the correct editing methods with comments such as: "Stop making unreffed changes..." and "provide WP:RS for your changes, how many times do I have to say this?" (both on 21 February) During the month of February, the number of references has gone from two (both by Mztourist) to 19 (most of them by me). The size of the page has gone from 4,500 bytes with no edits by me, to more than 13,000, mostly added and correctly referenced by me. I have got the hang of it. I have added a dozen references to Laurence's distinguished reputation as an author, journalist and documentary filmmaker. If you check Mztourist's history of edit-warring with other users on his Talk page, you can see how disputatious and bullying he is, not only with me. It appears that Mztourist now wants to get rid of me so that he can delete my edits and get back to writing his cruelly critical biography. I beg the Administrators who will decide this case to block Mztourist from participating any longer in the creation of the John Laurence biography and trust the good nature and wisdom of other editors on Wikipedia to keep it honest and objective.

Onward&Upward (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TLDR? @Onward&Upward: please summarize the issue in about one tenth of the amount of text, and please include some WP:DIFF so that people can confirm what you are talking about. Alternatively, you may prefer to abandon this case -- especially if it depends on convincing us as to who is and who is not a warm and kind-hearted person. MPS1992 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing why there is such extreme upset on the one hand, and what strikes me as somewhat excessive obstinacy on the other. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hatting "shorter" wall o'text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SHORT VERSION OF ONWARD&UPWARD'S DEFENSE: User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that is a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. Using Laurence's 850 page book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story", as his primary source, Mztourist has chosen a couple of negative incidents and one of his own critical observations to suggest that Laurence socialized with drug addicts in Saigon and whose reporting was "cynical" in Vietnam during the war. I have revised Mztourist's bio repeatedly to try to set the record straight, but he has resisted on each occasion with complaints about my failure to use the Wikipedia software correctly. I was learning it. An edit war has resulted. Here are examples of differences: 1) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program". However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and gave favorable if neutral coverage in what was referred to by the U.S. Army public information officers as "being with the program". However, as he witnessed more and more of the war--seeing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces, and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam--he became more critical of the U.S. presence and what might actually be achieved there." NOTE: Onward&Upward changed "more cynical" to "more critical." 2) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Shau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt. Col. Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. Many were killed. The story caused criticism when broadcast and led to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF. Laurence and one other reporter were criticized for going with the story because it reflected poorly on the Marines." 3) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Onard&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Through his friendship with UPI photojournalist Steve Northup, Laurence became an occasional visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Joseph Galloway, Tim Page, Martin Stuart-Fox, Simon Dring, Sean Flynn, and Dana Stone. It was known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a small group of young correspondents between field assignments where they listened to music and smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol." The editing has gone back and forth for weeks. Mztourist is trying to make the bio of Laurence as negative as possible while I have been trying to make it fair and objective. The version now on Wikipedia is the result of many additional references that I have added about Laurence's distinguished career as a journalist. He is still alive. Mztourist's claim above that he "tried to add other WP:RS as I went along" is not true. 95% of his effort has gone into edit warring with me. Recently, Laurence acted as a consultant for the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series on the Vietnam War and was one of the eye-witnesses interviewed for the broadcasts. Excerpts from "The Cat from Hue" were included in the book, "The Vietnam War," which accompanied the series. To now start a biography of Laurence which mentions prominently only that he was a visitor to a Saigon house where "large quantities of drugs" were consumed, that he caused "outrage" with a report on the murders of allied soldiers, and that he became "more cynical" as he witnessed more of the violence in the war--none of which is true historically--is more than biased or unfair. It is slanderous. May I suggest that Mztourist is the one who should be blocked from this page? Onward&Upward (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Onward&Upward has now added a reference to The Cat from Hue to Vietnam War here: [66], but still making no effort to properly cite refs despite seeing numerous examples of how this should be done. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) A Shorter version usually means something like five or ten sentences, not the 971 words and 6871 characters you have just above. Granted, it's an improvement over your first attempt, which weighed in at 1,556 words and 9936 characters. Counting the characters was about the only salient thing I could extract from either. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC) User:Mztourist is at it again with the comment above: "...but still making no effort to properly cite refs..." No effort? Look at it, man! And tell me, what's wrong with my two refs cited on the Vietnam War page? Is it the fact that they're cited at all? Or that they offend you? References

Onward&Upward (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Cutting through the verbiage, this is entirely a content dispute: there is no behavioral problem for admins to handle that I can see. These two editors should attempt to reconcile their differences on the article's talk page, or seek WP:Dispute resolution if that fails. I have hatted the two TLDNR sections, and recommend that this thread be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No this is not entirely a content dispute, Onward&Upward due to his/her family relationship with the subject seeks to portray the subject in only the most flattering light as can be seen from his/her comments above. As s/he is unable to adopt NPOV and follow basic procedures of editing, in addition to insulting me repeatedly, s/he should be blocked or banned from the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed entirely a content dispute. Mztourist is trying to portray the subject and his work in as negative a light as possible, arguing over technical details about how I have been making edits. My efforts to make the page more scholarly and historically accurate rubs Mztourist the wrong way. He/she is a Vietnam War revisionist of the worst kind, a mean-spirited reactionary who is attacking someone who reported the war honestly and objectively (evidenced by the many, many journalism awards he received). Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Tell you what: why don't you both back off and let some other people take a look at this? Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK by me. Onward&Upward (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't touched the page since 26 February, Onward&Upward has continued to make changes including at 20:44 yesterday, i.e. after agreeing above to back off the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made two minor additions to the page. Where did I agree to "back off" as you claim? Why can't you simply desist? Onward&Upward (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Four lines up from this one, Mangoe suggests why don't you both back off and let some other people take a look at this?" and you (O&U) respond "OK by me". That is where you agreed to "back off". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 8 March 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.

Acroterion has abused admin powers and they should be revoked

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 pointed out in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall how Acroterion suppressed diffs in the following edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)&offset=20180304&action=history&limit=6

@SarekOfVulcan: pointed out in special:diff/829124255 on March 6:

"I don't see a BLP violation in those supressed diffs"

Only after this abuse was pointed out did Acroterion admit in special:diff/829163386 on March 7:

In reviewing ScratchMarshal's edits at Talk:David Hogg (activist) I have reconsidered my redaction of some of ScratchMarshal's edits as essentially futile, in that they aren't blatant BLP violations

Futile as in ABUSIVE. They aren't "blatant" BLP violations because they are not ANY kind of violation. The edits are now presently un-redacted but I believe admins would be able to provide a log showing that Acroterion did redact then unredact them only when called out on it.

Acroterion's block based on false reasons was cited by MrX in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories to support a topic ban against me:

He posted more BLP violating content, which I reverted again. He reverted me, restoring the BLP violating material, at which point he was blocked by Acroterion.

This is blatent well-poisoning by both of these users, but it was Acroterion's abuse of admin tools which made it possible. It will not be possible to get a fair hearing until this abuse of powers is understood and there are punishments for it.

If people want to make an argument for me being topic-banned, that's fine, but it should be done from scratch with this initial attempt completely discredited because of the false allegations in it.

MrX deleted a source from the talk which was present in the article for 7 days, and which MrX was clearly aware of because he edited directly after it was added on February 25. Acroterion supported this dishonest behavior and engaged in further dishonest behavior.

I am glad that Acroterion has acknowledged the abuse and acknowledged that I did not violate BLP in what was rolled back and diff-redacted for days, but it isn't enough. There should be a consequential loss of power until Acroterion has shown the ability to edit responsibly and not endorse falsehoods. Acroterion needs to understand BLP better to avoid abusing his admin tools in the future. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend an immediate and long block for ScratchMarshall for violating their topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not violate the topic ban. You said in special:diff/829119931 there's no problem linking to diffs, mentioning BLP articles, and explain I didn't violate BLP. The only edits I have made since then are ANI/ARE related. ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

In your topic ban appeal. This is not your appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See my comments at ScratchMarshall's AE appeal. Recognizing ScratchMarshall's enthusiasm for discussing conspiracy theories about living individuals by incrementally framing them in extensive discussions of refutations, essentially inserting a parenthetical "NOT"! after going into great detail about the CTs, I gave up on the redaction. Since SM's trying to relitigate those BLP-violating discussions here and at AE, it seems to me that their topic ban isn't going well. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing venue shopping by ScratchMarshall may necessitate a lengthy block.--MONGO 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Acro this is not about whether or not reasons exist to enact a topic ban against me. This is about the fact that you

1. abused your admin powers to redact talk page comments which did not violate policy
2. reverted talk page comments which did not violate policy with your administerial weight behind the action
3. enacted a 48 hour ban under false pretenses
4. refuse to acknowledge how your abuses influenced the initial ANI arguments by MrX and how people perceived them

You simply backpedal and try to find different reasons to retroactively justify your actions once your initial reasons turn out to be wrong.

Someone as biased and abusive as you've proven to be should not be part of any future discussions to determine whether or not to topic ban, revert, redact or block someone related to BLP topics. You have proven irresponsible in this area.

If new blood comes along who have not actively engaged in abuse of admin powers in the course of BLP disputes, there's plenty of room for them to make those decisions. Even if they result in the same outcome, at least can possibly base it on better arguments.

Mongo: this isn't venue-shopping. Whether or not I should have a topic-block and whether or not Acroterion should keep his admin powers are separate issues. The only confusion that exists is the order to approach them in. The dilemma I face is:

1) if I appeal the topic block without proving Acro's abuse, Acro's abuse is kept in place as the linchpin of arguments against me

2) if I appeal to punish Acro's abuse without repealing my topic ban, NeilN says I am not allowed to discuss the evidence of Acro's abuse because of the topic block.

So what exactly is the correct order here when each issue interferes with appealing the other? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said at the AE Appeal: This editor is attempting to end-run BLP and muddy up articles by trying to link to fringe viewpoints (like conspiracy theories) in an attempt to darkwash articles about shooting survivors. They know they can't get the claims in the article, but by including the debunks - and the links to "sources" in the talk pages, including its history - their goal will be met. They are not here to help; they are here to harm.--Jorm (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Someone as biased and abusive as you've proven to be should not be part of any future discussions to determine whether or not to topic ban, revert, redact or block someone related to BLP topics. You have proven irresponsible in this area." About Acroterion. Facepalm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>Well, I certainly cannot support dessyopping Acroterion. I think the matter looks well blown out of proportion and would rather err on the side of caution where removing BLP problems are concerned and then be reversed then err on the side on leaving in a BLP violation.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was doing. The bar for redaction is "serious BLP violations." We can debate what that means, but I came to the conclusion that it wasn't serious enough to redact. That doesn't make it less of a BLP violation in its overall mass, nor does removal of the redaction exonerate SM from his campaign of end-runs around BLP policy or invalidate his topic ban. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well said.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked ScratchMarshall for a week for disruptive editing. The attacks on Acroterion and the blatant forum shopping are disruptive. I'll leave the thread open in case anyone wants to explore whether it was a TBAN violation, but my initial inclination is that while it is, to let it go with a warning as someone who isn't familiar with the AE process might confuse this as being part of an appeal (though if someone else sees it differently, I won't object to upping my block as an AE action). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: That's fine. Their appeal should be settled before their block expires and I expect this kind of stuff will stop (or they'll be receiving a much longer block). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support block of long duration for ScratchMarshall - This is a blatant violation of the OP's topic ban. I was the editor who advised SM that he could appeal his TB at AE, but told him he should discuss it with NeilN first, so I read the discussion on NeilN's page, and it was abundantly clear that Neil's advice that SM could mention the topic was in regard to the appeals only, and was in no way blanket permission for SM to mention it elsewhere, as he does here. There was no possibility that SM could have mistaken the instructions he was given, but I guess the burr he has up his butt about Acroterion (whom he blasts at every opportunity) must have overwhelmed him, and here we are. It seems to me that SM is a bad actor here, whose purpose is disruption. An indef block would, in my opinion, not be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• TonyB: Read the thread on NeilN's page, there's really no way he could have been confused about where he could mention his topic ban. He's taking us for a ride here. I recommend that you consider lengthening the block.Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• concur.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yeah, I read it. You're probably right, but as Neil said above, the appeal will be done by the time the block is over, and if he violates it, I'm pretty confident he will be indef'd or subject to a very long block. I can reasonably see myself thinking this was related to the appeal if I were in his shoes (though I would have asked for clarification first) and I don't want to hold someone else to a different standard than I hold myself. Call it the last bit of WP:ROPE. Also, like I said above, if someone else wants to extend it as an AE action, I have no objections to it (and I truly mean that). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unless something's happening that I've overlooked, I don't see a reason to consider this a ban violation. Remember that WP:BANEX permits dispute resolution, not strictly appeals alone. Of course, this sounds like a case of good old disruptive editing, so I have no reason to oppose Tony's decision, as long as it's not taken farther than he took it and considered an indef-worthy ban violation. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 8 March 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 trying to recruit others to harass me at my 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.

---

After being explicitly told they were not welcome to comment on my talk page, Evensteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to start edit warring with me there, complete with petty insults. Now, they've posted a "call to arms" to recruit others to harass me at my talk page. Would an admin please put a stop to this? I'm happy to discuss content, but I'm not engaging with this level of childishness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I took the liberty of notifying them of this post as apparently you forgot.going back to sleep now/still.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Um...what? Bennv3771 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Commented on relevant talk page.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, he has a point; this was not helpful. The old version was not as big a deal, in my opinion, but "If you don't know whether or not this notice applies to you..."? Well, no, probably most people heading to the talk page for the first time don't know whether or not the notice applies to them, and it's surely not congenial. Dekimasuよ! 08:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yegad. I know my concept of civility and colleagiality is probably quaintly outdated, but I still think that is not right,--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've left a note at their TP clarifying a few things. Unless I'm missing a lot of back-story, I'm not really sure this was ANI material. GoldenRing (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If that sort of warning welcome to everyone intending to leave a message - as well as their frequent passive aggressive behavior in article discussion and occasionally threatening edit summaries - is acceptable then it is a sad reflection on the community. The only saving grace is that they need never consider RfA. :) Leaky Caldron 13:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

::Interesting message that he left this morning at Talk:Christmas controversies: "I will take tomorrow to decide what steps I take next, and then things will go where they go. But I expect this issue to be familiar to anyone who edits controversial articles, and any responses may help others also to clarify their own opinions. And the decisions you all reach will determine who will be around here, editing in times to come." Doug Weller talk 14:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC) I@ve misinterpreted this. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we put a cork on the WP:NLT bottle for now? Editors who are adverse to what they see as needlessly confrontational or hostile interactions will sometimes say, "either someone tells editor X to change their behavior or I'm gone". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since last night's word-explosion. I agree with NeilN. My reading is that he plans to start a thread here, after which heads will roll.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Look, if someone wants to have a talk about my edit notice, that's fine. Let's have a talk. Go to my talk page, add a section and say your bit, and as long as it's not a obviously bad-faith whining or setting ultimatums that we both know you won't follow through on, I'll respond. Hell, you can see where I responded to another comment on it a couple days ago. I've explained the purpose before, and I'll explain it again. And if you have a better idea as how to fulfill that purpose, then I'm listening. And I suppose if you want to have the conversation here, then that's fine, too.

But my OP here wasn't "Tell this editor that they need to like and appreciate my edit notice or else." My OP here was "Would someone tell this editor that calling for a harassment campaign against another editor is not acceptable?"

Looking at the talk page, I see that's been done. So I'm happy right now. If EvenSteven wants to discuss the content, they're more that welcome to open another thread at talk and state their case that we need a "scholarly" source to support an assertion that's borderline synth from any other reference in the article, probably directly supported by at least 1/3 of the references used already, trivially easy to find a source for and not really controversial at all.

But I would like to point out that if getting offended one time was enough to convince an editor to leave the project, there's no point in trying to retain them. Because they're going to get offended at something else, and it's not going to take very long, either.

@Leaky caldron: Thanks for jumping in! Sorry you had no luck this time, but I'm sure if you keep trying, eventually you'll convince an admin to indef me over your inability to comprehend the blatantly obvious context of an edit summary I once made. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

In my own view, MPants was engaged in a form of bullying with his talk page notice. I have learned that bullies need to be shown that intimidation does not work. I have not been recruiting, since there never was anything to recruit for. I was trying at the article talk, to guage the sympathy (or not) of the editing community to MPAnts' kind of behavior, as that article is a well-known battleground for hostile editing. And I was considering whether or not I should bring the matter to ANI, which would be an additional data point for reactions. But today I find we're already here, so let's proceed as you see fit.

I left WP for a time (which turned into 2 years), after supplying 5000 edits and a fair amount of work, and like to think I was generally well-respected. But I needed a break from the trolls. I believe in the edits I made at Christmas Controversies, but I also thought it might be a way to find out what might have changed here in that time, and in which direction. I remain convinced that bombast, insults, and general refusal to engage with others constructively create an environment which does not only damage to the ability to build, but in which the damage destroys that ability entirely. I want to know what WP, and its administrators, now are willing to tolerate, because I know what I will tolerate. If that's childish (as MPants says), well, name-calling is just another form of bullying and incivility. I just haven't experienced it much since childhood myself. Except on WP. Is WP still experiencing a withdrawal of experienced editors? I'm just telling you what it may be uncomfortable to hear. But I'm still a volunteer. I have a right to decide what kind of situations I want to be in. And I'm busy engaging in a decision here. Evensteven (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that bombast, insults, and general refusal to engage with others constructively create an environment which does not only damage to the ability to build, but in which the damage destroys that ability entirely. Then in the future, you might want to, when advised to "take it to talk", you know... Take it to talk, instead of going straight to making threats and bitching and moaning on an editor's talk page, followed by placing a call for more editors to come support you on the article's talk while proclaiming your unwillingness to discuss content until you feel that editor has been sufficiently chastised and edit warring with them at their talk page.

In other words, if you don't like bombast, insults and a general refusal to engage with others; don't engage in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are the bombastic bully who refuses to engage on anyone's terms but yours. What my late mother used to call "a nasty piece of work". You need to get a grip. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Still making personal attacks against people you don't like? Watch out, this is ANI, not an admin's talk page. There's already plenty of admins here to respond to that, so I won't need to get "another". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Another implied threat? Leaky Caldron 17:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's not implied. If you keep following me around hurling personal attacks I will start a thread about you, right here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No one confronts a bully without their doing a bit of screaming. And if you don't back down, it's all your fault. Evensteven (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I've said enough for the day. I expect to return tomorrow. Evensteven (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"If I don't back down?" From what? My my explicit refusal to discuss the content until my terms are met? From my repeated personal attacks? From my edit warring on multiple pages? I will agree with you on one thing: I certainly think you've said enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

For sure. Evensteven needs to take a couple large "conflict de-escalation" pills and step away before they get an interaction ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:36, 10 March 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.

Revoke talk page access for 207.164.2.174

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.

---

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

For 207.164.2.174; user continues with abuse edits on talk page. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 10 March 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.

List of Christian rock bands

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

---

Please review recent edit summaries and the talk page for List of Christian rock bands. There are multiple problems with this article from secular artists being added (and their articles not claiming they are even Christian which doesn't automatically make them inclusive), to individual singers (solo acts) being added who are not credited as a band/group, to poor or no sourcing/cites, to basic errors with capitalization and punctuation or not correctly linking to related articles, to WG reverting productive edits yet blaming others for the mistakes, poor "definition" of what is considered Christian rock, to over-linking genres, etc. etc. Unsourced bands should be removed. It amounts to nothing more than an article of favorite bands/people even though they do not qualify. Thank you for your time. 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit summaries and the talk page. They are fine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So Van Morrison and U2 are Christian rock bands? John Reuben a rapper is a rock band? Not having any sources to verify them is acceptable? Upper case genres, missing commas, etc. are ok? And when they are fixed then reverted by WG, that's fine? Solo acts not bands on the list and not a separate list is fine? 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria should be that the bands have been described in WP:Reliable sources as a Christian rock band, or their music described as Christian rock. It's not enough to show that members of the band are Christian. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! I totally agree. And that article does not adhere to Wiki policy. Editors like WG (see recent edit summaries) are avoiding and ignoring that very point plus reverting good edits made to improve the article like punctuation, lower/uppercase letters, etc. They are not sourced and should be removed. Van Morrison is not a Christian band even if his music has God-themes and it's not proven he is even Christian as editor WG claims. U2 is a secular band. Some are rappers. Many who did Christian rock in the past (ie. Dion or BJ Thomas aren't even on the list and shouldn't be since they are credited as solo acts just like others on that list are when the article is for bands only). The "CCM" definition in the intro is also a weak argument for what constitutes Christian ROCK bands (not contemporary). The template for the article is being disregarded and only popular bands some like or think are acceptable are added while others removed. lists (per criteria and sources) P.S. There is also not a consensus on some entries and an editor leaving the poorly or unsourced people/bands or reverting those removed because they aren't true Christian rock bands is wrong. 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 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:Ho Kei Hon

I have sent ten messages (see User talk:Ho Kei Hon, especially User talk:Ho Kei Hon#Sources and communication). These have been about creating unreferenced articles; others have sent similar messages over the past year. HKH has not responded to a single message and has not addressed the concerns; a typical example of their creations is 2014 Guangzhou R&F F.C. season.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but I have had no luck with my ten messages in getting through to them. Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Done... Swarm ♠ 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jirayu phumphong

After eight ignored messages, I'm coming here. Please see User talk:Jirayu phumphong#Sources. I have tried to communicate with this editor many times but they have never answered a talk page message although they've been around a while. They have been creating unreferenced articles, and refuse to discuss it or add them.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but I have had no luck with my ten messages in getting through to them. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• ...done... Swarm ♠ 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Vuca1990

Please see User talk:Vuca1990#Sources and communication. I have tried to contact this editor many times about creating unreferenced articles. They continue to edit, but not to respond to my messages and not to address the issue. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but they continue to ignore the issue. Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• ...and done. Swarm ♠ 12:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Efficient as ever, Swarm! Hopefully this will get them to talk to us. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article

• MigenMemelli (talk · contribs)
• AstoundingBumper (talk · contribs)
• 185.191.204.139 (talk · contribs)
• 84.215.252.76 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4104:a09b:7b36:6529:5a68 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4104:4c0f:529b:15ba:5247 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:420d:9102:6236:a16b:3356 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4000:ccdb:991b:6b35:36f5 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4644:929e:0:74b3:90a9:7175:cf84 (talk · contribs) added to thread on 22:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• 129.242.248.123 (talk · contribs) added to thread on 15:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• 148.252.116.216 (talk · contribs) added to thread on 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Gabriel Batistuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

• Kante4 (talk · contribs)
• Inurehates (talk · contribs)
• KylieTastic (talk · contribs)
• Reinhardheydt (talk · contribs)
• Pablomartinez (talk · contribs) added to thread on 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ip user(s) and MigenMemelli keep on adding a trivial award / recognition "Heia fotball Glory Hall " which probably awarded by a Norwegian radio program, the first few edits were reverted directly for no source to verify , while today MigenMemelli (talk · contribs), finally added http://p3.no/heia-fotballs-glory-hall/ as source. However, still unable to prove/verify the notability of the award / recognition "Heia fotball Glory Hall ", so i reverted the edit and told him in his talk page , as well as the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. However, he still 3RR (the last revert was performed by logout as 185.191.204.139 (talk · contribs)). So, either block would make him understand, or someone with fluent Norwegian to tell him wikipedia is not a collection of every trivial information. Matthew_hk tc 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the ipv6 were from the same Norwegian isp, while the last two were from Norway and Israel (the last edited ip 185.191.xxx.xxx) respectively.

Correction 2, seem i also made the third revert. Matthew_hk tc 13:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I see Heia Fotball is a notable enough show in Norway to have an article in that language, but not in English. If you (MigenMemelli (talk · contribs) etc) feel you must add it somewhere, why not add it to his Norwegian article? It's only Norwegians who will care. To all others, it's a pointless promotional accolade awarded by an obscure radio show based in a country to which the person has no connection, and has no place in his Wikipedia article. Crowsus (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Add a registered user (and user that actively join the discussion in football project) that also revert those non-notable award to this thread. Matthew_hk tc 19:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Non notable award. Should not be added. User does not communicate, which does not help. Kante4 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

add AstoundingBumper. Matthew_hk tc 00:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

add more rightful revertor to the list Inurehates, KylieTastic, Reinhardheydt Matthew_hk tc 00:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

New editor here for promotional reasons

Fritz Fehling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be here purely to attempt to start a movement based on their own philosophical musings. As is typical for such editors, the exact meaning of much of their commentary is obscured behind their own non-standard use of common terms and frequent misuse of jargon. However, it has become clear through comments like this, this and this that they are not suggesting improvements to our articles, but rather trying to promote their own theories. Both another editor and I have attempted to explain the problem to them, but as is usual in these cases, those attempts were met with "You're missing the point and you're rude!" style reactions. I don't see any use in wasting editor time continuing to try to explain the purpose of Wikipedia to someone who simply doesn't care what we're here for, and is highly unlikely to even really understand what is being explained to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "promotion" is the right word, but the user certainly has the wrong idea about Wikipedia, and thinks it's a place to publish original thought. I've added a short comment and a policy link telling them it's not. Perhaps the drip-drip of more and more users coming by will do the trick? Anyway, I think it's too soon for any thought of sanctions. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC).

While I don't really see editor this going anywhere but down the drain, I agree, which is why I didn't actually ask for sanctions (to be fair, I started to, but changed my mind before I hit "publish"). I'm more than happy to open up the faucet of "hey, that's not what this site is for" comments and see if that washes away the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits are made by humans who are always prone to expressional faults, no matter how professional! Such mistakes that the author did not realise do not necessarily make these expressions useless, incompetent or unprofessional, but in need of correction / improvement. This is one major reason for the talk sites where others can edit / insert corrections – otherwise there is no point of having them, and Wikipedia is throwing out the baby with the bath water… Of course, in order to achieve the removal and silencing of an author's truth-revealing edit even the smallest of such mistakes can be used as pretence. As examples for useful neutral contributions I quote my latest 2:

Proposal to Change Talk Site to Top Importance

Currently Talk:Constitutional Democracy is rated only "high" instead of top on importance scale, despite that it is fundamentally more important than Talk:Politics' top rating, because it deals with the neutral constitutional pre-condition for democratic politics versus authoritarian propaganda... Furthermore, there should be big hyperlink jumps embedded by Wikipedia within strongly related talk sites to enhance discussion inputs by other competent contributors... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing Wikipedia’s “Constitutional-Democracy” Redirect

Wikipedia redirects “Constitutional Democracy” to “Liberal Democracy” which counts some parliamentary monarchies as democracies, whereas by inherent definition a [constitutional] democracy cannot be a monarchy, regardless how liberal the latter is. It uses “liberal” too liberally and thus wrongly, which is another reason for merging democracy/republic entries into one “Constitutional-Democracy” entry! --Fritz Fehling

Proposal below was embedded in Talk: Republican Democracy - Wikipedia and in Talk: WikiProject Politics on 2/3/2018, but reverted by MPants:

Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic

Please visit Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic for discussing a detailed draft Constitutional-Democracy/Republic (a pre-condition for democratic politics versus dictatorship propaganda) design! --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fritz Fehling: This is about editor behavior, not article content. There have been claims that your edits so far have been focused more on presenting your own views (which we do not use) rather than summarizing professionally-published sources (which is what we do here). You have not properly addressed that. The simple way would have been to say "oh, I didn't realize that Wikipedia does not use original research, I will just summarize sources from now on." Instead, you chose to throw plenty of Tu quoques at MjolnirPants, some of which involve wild fantasy on your part. The wild fantasy parts (that he's on gov't payroll, that he was actively pretending to be an admin and you weren't just mistake) actually do hurt your case.

Now, would you like to try again? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator MPants is Using Insulting Displays and Language

It should be remarked that MPants is even intentionally using unprofessional insulting displays and language in talk communications; see my user-talk page. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fritz Fehling: Could you quote something? I'm not immediately spotting any such language. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, MjolnirPants isn't an administrator. ansh666 01:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He may be referring to the edit notice on my page: which is expressly intended (at least in part) to dissuade editors such as this from repeatedly complaining about how "rude" comments like this are. But then, it's equally possible that Fritz is referring to me asking him to trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to WP standards and norms, or perhaps it was my offer to help them become a productive editor, if they will just stop going on about their philosophical musings. That's pretty much the extend of our interaction, right there.

Oh, and Fritz? I'm not an administrator. I'm just an editor who has made an effort to try to help you avoid sanctions. Look just above. Even when I did break down and ask an actual admin to take a look at your edits, I decided not to ask for you to be blocked. I'd really rather you figure out what we're doing here and join in than get kicked off the project for refusing to listen, no matter how unlikely you're making that seem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to MPants' talk entry where he writes that [the uncivilised American middle finger on top of his edit-source page; You can only understand the meaning, when you follow this trail, because he avoided to literally mention this finger...] also applies to me; I was at that time unaware of the administrator-contact function of the user-talk pages.

There appears to be a need for WP to introduce a clear signature info (abbrev.) when a talk-page entry is from an administrator; Otherwise some correspondents (on payroll of their government?) may enjoy the power-play of indirectly pretending to be a competent administrator, preventing/down-putting valuable contributions and lowering WP to a shallow nasty chat site. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith and quit imagining that you mistaking MjolnirPants for an admin is really the same as him pretending to be one (because he didn't). Maybe you could also consider that, by our standards, you have yet to contribute anything of value to the site, as we do not accept original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued by "insulting displays" in the section title, it brings out the anthropologist in me. I see MjolnirPans performing a Wikipedia ritual dance involving putting the tip of his thumb to his nose and waggling his fingers while making rude raspberry sounds with his tongue and lips, all while jumping up and down, perhaps occasionally interspersed with a hip-hop style stance of tilted head and crossed arms in which both hands are flashing Fritz Fehling the bird. Now that's an insulting display. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

<quickly leaps back into his chair and wipes the spittle off his face> Uhhh. Weird, hehe. I have no idea why you would think that. I would uh, never do anything like that. Nope. Never. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not quite what I envisioned--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I envisioned a variation of the mating displays of birds. But BMK's version is better. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(copyvio link removed) "Very impressive. But no one is watching."] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

close. no cigar --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the first time that this impression has been given. Like when they warned me "next revert and I ask I ask another admin to step in" Leaky Caldron 13:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean your reverts on AN ADMIN'S TALK PAGE? Gee, I wonder who the admin I might have been referring to was... ROFLMAO I think it's hilarious that you still haven't figured that out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fritz Fehling's article edits

I have closely examined Fritz Fehling's article edits, and ... oh, wait, Fritz Fehling has not made any article edits, only talk page edits. I suggest that it's possible that Fritz Fehling is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Constitutional Democracy" is currently redirected to WP"Liberal Democracy" and thus not available for editing -- For developing any new complex main encyclopedia article from scratch the related high-importance talk site appears to be most suitable, apparently allowing for the correction of mistakes / formulations / omissions through the wider public, rather than expecting finished articles (plus a donation?) by paid government officials having to tow the double-speak-propaganda line of their undemocratic governments. My major contribution has been removed (censored) by someone, without notice or shifting it to my talk page for referral, leaving commentators guessing and making wrong down-putting conclusions. Is this American power politics?... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

He is clearly a metapedian104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ye shall know them by their fruits - I think that, if this editor doesn't improve their editing behavior going forward after the feedback they have received, they will certainly be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, cut out the gay jokes. EEng 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What, you want sad jokes instead? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No making fun of the afflicted, either. EEng 22:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't do that. aitasecond, I actually own that shirt. Dear god, what have I become?! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Wingwraith

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

---

From: Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6: "I also state for the record that you are in contravention of WP:BRD as you (not me) are supposed be initiating this discussion" How WP:ADMIN is this? Isn't the "last stable version" the one just before trouble started? ("rv useless information, WP:BRD as I am reverting your edits + take to tp", without actually then having written anything on the talk page). My basic question here: who started disrupting here (on WP, not in the UK), and so is subject to 3RR limitation first? Just trying to make sense of it here. 195.62.68.228 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ADMIN doesn't apply, there is no stable version, and no one "started disrupting", as both sides are held equally accountable in an edit war, and both sides are equally subject to 3RR. Swarm ♠ 12:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

And both sides should probably be blocked for continual edit warring and start getting along with each other if they are going to both continue editing portal pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you already. So we'd be right to dismiss the publication of this (victimist neocon propagandabias) item altogether? 195.62.68.228 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all actually, not even in the ballpark. Swarm ♠ 13:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So, if not the empty version, 'there is no stable version' means nothing? What are the other possibilities? Wakari07 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The possibilities are you all need to start to discuss with the aim to achieve consensus using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary or you all risk being blocked for edit warring or other disruptive editing. Very often, it not helpful to worry about who should initiate discussion, or who 'started disrupting' or who is 'worse' in a dispute. Concentrate instead on colloborating to improve wikipedia which means someone should just initiate discussion and everyone should stop edit warring, or doing anything else which isn't good behaviour. But if you really must know, so far since User:Wingwraith is the only one to say anything on the talk page and also doesn't seem to have needlessly brought this silly dispute to ANI, they are the one who is looking better. Incidentally, although they are named in the title of this thread, they seem to have been first notified by one of the respondents in this thread of this ANI which isn't a good look for the IP who started this discussion. (Is that you, I'm a bit confused.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

TBH no one comes out looking good when they get to 17RR [67][68] Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You may block me, doesn't change a thing. Also, I'm not asking whether I look good, I'm not asking to block anyone and I'm not forumshopping. Sorry for y'all valuable time but I asked my question (I was in a hurry on another computer, so I was that IP) only because I wanted guidance for learning how to improve my behaviour. Sorry again and bye for me. Wakari07 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Wakari07: 8k edits over 10 years and you're asking "What are the other possibilities?" other than edit warring? Really? "You can block me, doesn't change a thing"? Thanks for letting me know. If the standard 24 hour edit warring block won't change a thing, I'll be sure to set it to indefinite instead. Swarm ♠ 15:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps both need a short block, to help them regain perspective? At least Wingwraith did post to talk.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm silent here. Wakari07 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I dispute the suggestion that I should be blocked as you and the other contributors have noted I was the one who first tried to resolve this dispute by raising it on the tp even after my previous encounter with Wakari07 on the March 5 current events portal. Wingwraith (talk) 22:52, 10 March 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:Ozarcusmapesae

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:Ozarcusmapesae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has continuously created articles without any sources, (see Geology of Wolverhampton, Xiuningpus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (moved to Draft:Xiuningpus), Heightingtonaspis, Spermatozoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Metacryphaeus, Endomychura, and Compsognathididipidae) made unsourced edits (see [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], and [77]), and cited sources which do not verify their claims (see Peroloplites, Ichniotherium and verify check fail, WP:Articles for deletion/(?) Pinus, and Ichabodcraniosaurus). These policy violations continued after multiple attempts to educate ([78], [79], [80] [81]), and warn ([82], [83], [84]). I left them a level 4 warning on 9 March 2018, which was not heeded.

Handling this situation has been complicated by the fact that the user has made some constructive edits, but even when adding information that is ultimately verifiable they often disregard WP:Verifiability and do not cite, despite many warnings, and they acknowledge policy as they add sources tags to articles they've just created without coming back and adding any (see Thomas and his Friends, Endomychura). While multiple users have tried to help guide them via talk pages and edit summaries, there has been no response and they continue to make disruptive changes which must often be reverted, or someone else must add sources and determine what are factual errors (see Petralcinae).

I would have tried to resolve this elsewhere, and have tried to resolve it directly with them, but since account creation on 16 Feb 2018, the many attempts at communication with this user have failed, not replying on any talk pages (see User talk:Ozarcusmapesae (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)) even when ping'd. They only once responded ":O" to a message justifying an edit reversion, which implies they do understand how their talk page works but have not heeded the warnings there. They also replied "hoax" on an AfD they created for their own draft [85].

Overall, I think—despite the fact that they sometimes edit constructively—their disregard for policy/guidelines, illustrated by consistent violations of WP:Verifiability, unwillingness to communicate, WP:Copyright violations, as well as other issues as evidenced by their talk page, mean this user's editing should be addressed more seriously. Thank you, ElfLady64 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Having had some interaction with the editor in question, I endorse the summary above. There are also the cases of the "illustrations" he added, cfr. [86], [87]. In general the pattern seems to suggest some serious WP:COMPETENCE issues.--cyclopia^speak! 17:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Second the above. The editor's useful contributions are leavened with such a high proportion of doubtful material that every single one must be checked for accuracy. That is not helped by the fact that they like to work in somewhat obscure areas (e.g. trace fossils, nomina dubia) where only a very small number of editors can spot the BS without digging into the sources (me not among them). They are simply creating too much work for the occasional good bits to be worth it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 11 March 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:KolbertBot 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.

---

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.41.215 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:19, 11 March 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.

InedibleHulk and BLPs related to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

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

---

User:InedibleHulk seems to have issues with biographical articles related to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. This includes repeatedly presenting false, insane conspiracy theories about shooting survivors as something other than the false, insane nonsense that they are — the conspiracy theory that David Hogg is a "crisis actor" is not something "he denied," it's flat-out libelous nonsense. But InedibleHulk replaced "survivor" with "crisis actor" here.

According to InedibleHulk's edit summary, We're not in the true or false business. We present verifiable allegations and denials. I believe that this evinces a failure to understand our policies related to writing about living people. Of course we are in the true or false business — the Holocaust happened, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and David Hogg is not a crisis actor. We present true things as true and false things as false — fringe conspiracy nonsense does not deserve credence here.

This is related to him running around to survivor BLPs and removing the word "survivor" from their articles without attempting to gain consensus, on the flimsy pretext that "if they weren't shot, they aren't a survivor," which is contrary to the reliable sources covering these events. They appear to want to minimize these events or present them in a manner other than how reliable sources have presented them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for BLP violations, including continuing them after fairly strong warnings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree batshit fringe conspiracy theories about living people have no place in their biography - regardless of if it has been addressed by reliable sorces. But it is not necessarily a BLP issue as it has been covered and responded to by the subject. I can reliably source coverage about the fringe theory that the head of state for the UK and the Commonwealth is a lizard person - but rightly our article on Elizabeth II makes zero mention of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a BLP issue because InedibleHulk chose to present the theory as if it is not false — which it is, as the very source he cited repeatedly makes clear. We have a responsibility to article subjects to present such theory as they are presented in reliable sources: as false, discredited nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit warring block is rightfully appropriate , but the logic behind their edits is fully valid. We are far too close to the event to have the appropriate hindsight to judge whom is right or wrong, particularly when we are talking about how a person thinks of themselves; we present sides without stating if one is right or wrong. --Masem (t) 19:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait what, Masem? Are you saying that we don't know whether or not David Hogg is a crisis actor or not? Are you serious? That is utter bollocks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's what the media is labeling him, we say "Journalists call Hogg a crisis actor, though Hogg has denied the charges.", following YESPOV. --Masem (t) 19:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we do not. We do not provide support for batshit insane fringe conspiracy theories simply because the media reports (as is their job) that they exist. We are not "the media", we are an encyclopedia, and we have a much different mission. While there may be a place for such theories in an article about batshit insane fringe conspiracy theories, there is absolutely no justification for including them in a BLP article.

Masem, you disappoint me. You're no newbie, you really should know better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should do that, no, as it isn't reliable sources that made the spurious accusation. There's no middle ground to stake here. ValarianB (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You really should read articles before commenting on them here. No journalist is calling Hogg a crisis actor — it is a bizarre fringe conspiracy theory adhered to by literally not one single reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 12 March 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.

Talk page access needs to be revoked

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

---

See Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 11:19, 12 March 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:Миша Карелин - accusation in fraud

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

---

Please consider his accusation in fraud. [88]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki about this case [89]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the organizers of the exhibition had confused the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450. So it was, one of the organizers of the exhibition made a mistake and recognized this error [90]). This does not mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of Petter Bøckman.

I want to ask you for help. As you can see, I have biological knowledge, I have all the sources that are used in the article. I can improve it. I began to supplement sections on insects, orangutans, Laysan albatross and other sections. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [91]. The author of this error recognized it [92]. My opponent, does not have sources [93], he argued, that I was wrong, not relying on sources. He completely blocks the work on the article. He suggested creating a section about mice, but does not do it. Please look edits, his arguments, questions and behavior on all themes. [94] I hope to work. It automatically removes almost all of my work, and the material of other biologists [95], without understanding biological meaning, and without reading sources. [96]

Sample stop working [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104][105] [106]

Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [107] [108] [109] Путеец (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• This dispute has already been to NeilN's talk page in the sections User talk:NeilN#User:Путеец and User talk:NeilN#Violation of WP:CIV as well as all over the Homosexual behaviour in animals article and its talk page. My impression from watching this for a while is that there are POV pushing and competence issues here as well as a lack of comprehension of English that are making things worse. EdChem (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Scientific stuff, I understand well. I have difficulty in literary retelling and spelling. But I know the material myself well. In addition, not only my offers are deleted. But the contribution of other biologists. Путеец (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Just look at the statement of the User Путеец - one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior, but for some reason pedophilia, coprophagy, are more common in animals. And this statement was made by User Путеец, who now makes very controversial changes in Homosexual behavior in animals article. Any more proves about his POV pushing ?? I wish other Users (Flyer22 Reborn and Ravenswing) who are editing the mentioned article confirmed my words. M.Karelin (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator NeilN is handling the situation. I do not see the need to involve other administrators. M.Karelin (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors are getting fed up with each other and I've suggested using the dispute resolution noticeboard as a more structured way to discuss content matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Neil, please pay attention to the fact that none of the editors complained about my actions, but everyone noticed the actions of the participant Путеец. Here are examples [110] , [111]. Taking into consideration his statement on article's Talk page (I menationed it above), I think the only way to stop this nightmare will be the imposition of the topic ban. He does not improving the article now. M.Karelin (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • After the advice of colleagues, I stopped canceling your edits. --Путеец (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• As this area is not under discretionary sanctions only the community/arbcom can impose a topic ban. If you want to propose one then I suggest opening a new subsection in this thread dedicated to discussing the ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Pay attention, the abolition of edits, including biologists, without reading the scientific literature worries me less. This will become clear if we analyze its contribution, and the lack of biological knowledge. Without this knowledge it is difficult to assess my contribution. As I understand it, he just does not like scientific quotations that do not correspond to him. The ethical side of the issue worries me. Reputation of people. Such activity for the removal of scientific information occurs in the Russian Wikipedia. He insists on the introduction of unscientific information, for example 1500 species of animals, and I defend accurate information from scientific sources, which is confirmed. As you can see, I am correcting mistakes that exist for 10 years in the article, and most of all it was opposed by Миша Карелин. He insisted that this error remaining in the article. --Путеец (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is not the truth. Biologist Petter Bockman agreed with my last comments and objections. As of you, because of your language barrier you wanted to put in the article a nonsense about "Orangutans", we hardly stopped you. M.Karelin (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• The situation with the number 1500 only shows that you know arithmetic, but not zoology. And that number was not written there by me. M.Karelin (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This means that I read scientific articles, and I am correcting Wikipedia. This also means that you do not read the sources and want to save errors in Wikipedia. --Путеец (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Several editors, who are native English speakers, warned you about your language barrier. Maybe you read the sources, but you do not understand them well, then you trie to put a wrongful info in the article, and never pay attention to other editor's comments. Once again, I am not the only one who noticed this, several other editors sais the same thing. The only reason you are here is to make a POV pushing, and your statement proves it. M.Karelin (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • As you see, many of those who supported you - were mistaken. Many scientists who looked at Wikipedia for 10 years did not notice this error. They also wanted to save the error in the article. I think administrators will see real motives, quality of work, and a useful contribution. I created the article Antisperm antibodies, supplemented the articles [112] with important information that did not exist in it, but I was opposed by another biologist, he could not remove all the scientific information he wanted. But he's a scientist. And you do not even read articles whose material you delete. --Путеец (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, everyone will see your real motives (one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior) and the quality of your work (Fox (a scientist) unequivocally says that only two times in all time there was homosexual behavior. (of Orangutans)). I am sure everyone will see those things. M.Karelin (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I hope you will ever read these papers, and make sure that I'm right. Baily et al says: "For many people, the issue of same-sex sexual behavior in animals is more than just academic. Bagemihl’s [16] compendium documenting same-sex behavior in nearly 450 species has been frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans. First, greater communication between researchers working on human sexual behavior and researchers engaged in non-human animal work would enhance the research programs of both. These two fields can most effectively communicate with each other if efforts are made to avoid politicizing research results and drawing parallels between human sexual identity and animal behavior when they are clearly not merited. [113] --Путеец (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Well, if you think, that all those quotes say that "one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior", you are absolutelly wrong !! No one оf reliable sources said such things, and no one of those quotes said such things. Those are only your words. Do not try to prove us that some reliable sources said the same things. Once again - your statement proves that you do not assume good faith editing the article. All your comments here show the stile you work with sources - you quote different people to justify your statement, although they meant quite different things, and not what you wrote on Talk page. If this is how you understand the sources, well, this is one more prove that you have huge language barrier, or you just try to justify your words quoting different people who told absolutely other things. M.Karelin (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
              • For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in their amici curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which ultimately struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states. --Путеец (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Why you wrote that comment on article's Talk page ?? WHY ?? Again - your statement just proves that you do not assume good faith editing the article. This is why you have conflict with all editors on Talk page and do not agree with anyone there (fresh examples - situation with "Orangutans" section and with "Neurobiological basis" section). M.Karelin (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • If I am right, and you are mistaken, like many others, for example about 1500, why should I agree with you? All my opponents were wrong, and I'm right. Do you think I should have refused to defend the truth? How do you allow yourself to make statements without reading the sources, I'm generally surprised. Путеец (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • Once again, the situation with 1500 just show that you are good at Arithmetica, not in biology. Because of your huge language barrier you misunderstood many issues and sources, like right now here Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Talk (Fox on Orangutan behaviour). Please administrators pay attention to whats going on on Talk page, that would show you the whole picture of the situation. M.Karelin (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                      • I believe I have just been told by Путеец that my opinion does not matter, though the insertion of another user's name in a comment apparently addressed to me leaves me uncertain. If I interpret it correctly, this seems frankly rather hostile, especially given that I have read relevant sections of the document in question, and simply disagree as to the author's intended meaning. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                      • Icarosaurvus No, this applies to Миша Карелин. Forgive me if my text seemed so. I have a very respectful attitude to the interlocutors. But the translation is sometimes not accurate. I want to say that without having a source and not reading it, it's difficult to substantiate one's argument with arguments. For it is not based on the knowledge of the source. --Путеец (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Please do not continue the content dispute here — that is not what ANI is for. If one of you has an issue with another editor's behavior say what the issue is and illustrate it with a few diffs. Then let uninvolved editors comment on the matter. Back and forth between the involved editors really does not help. If there is not an articulable behavior problem please continue your conversation at the article talk page. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 21:27, 12 March 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.

Violation of WP:CIV- Again and again

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

---

Dear administrators, please look at those statements of the User Путеец - N1 - Please do not interfere with the work, N2 - Do not you think that this is a simple trolling? He cancels all my edits without thinking or reading sources, and again, today - N3- Your opinion does not matter, and the argumentation is not valid, without reading the sources. After it, he said sorry to another editor for abusive words, and told him - No, this applies to Миша Карелин. Forgive me if my text seemed so. I have a very respectful attitude to the interlocutors. Please do something. How long he will abuse me without any interference of the administrators ?? I am sorry for telling this, but in Russian wiki for these kind of behaviour he would be blocked a few days ago. Does he has right to be abusive to other editors this way?? M.Karelin (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I want to say that without having a source and not reading it, it's difficult to substantiate one's argument with arguments. For it is not based on the knowledge of the source. But the translation is sometimes not accurate. Nobody blocked me in Russian wikipedia. A topic ban was imposed for the fact that I corrected the error. This error is recognized, and the topic ban will be removed. You simply block scientific information that you do not like. And in Russian Wikipedia, and here. Although you do not read the sources yourself. --Путеец (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am really tired to abused by you. If administrators will not make any sanctions against you, then I will treat you the same way on the Talk page, and we ll see what it turns.M.Karelin (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that if the administrators analyze my contribution and your, my arguments and yours, then you will be blocked. I came to work in the article. I have a lot of scientific information. I remind you, other people, not me, have applied for my persecution in RuWiki. --Путеец (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You dont have right to abuse me, or anyone else !! For violation of WP:CIV these way you would be blocked in Ruwiki for a long time, and you know it. And my contribution is quite well. As of you, you are arguing with every editor on the Talk page, and disagree with anyone there. Thats a very interesting fact. Again, if administrators will allow you to behave this way, I ll treat you the same way, I promise. M.Karelin (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • it is not true [114]. I never blocked WP:CIV. Please provide proof of this. --Путеец (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Provide prove of what ?? Please read more carefully what I wrote above !! And learn English please !! With your huge language barrier you are arguing with MANY English Native speakers about content of the sources, and disagreee with anyone of them. Moreover, you think you can be abuseive to editors and not been punished for that. M.Karelin (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
            • PLEASE STOP! BOTH OF YOU!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any egregious violation of our civility standards -- such as they are -- in the diffs provided by M.Karelin. I do think that both editors should be warned that continuing this back and forth on AN/I without the presentation of actual evidence of behavioral problems in the form of diffs could very well lead to both of them being blocked from editing for a short period of time. (And just to be clear to both editors, I am not an admin. I'm merely offering an opinion as to what an admin might be inclined to do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear Beyond My Ken, in your opinion, those words - Your opinion does not matter, and the argumentation is not valid - are not violate CIV ?? Or when he accused me in trolling  ?? Is it allowed here ?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about trolling? [115] You do not give a continuation of the quote. I'm not the only one telling you this. [116]--Путеец (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thats was kind of question, and not an accusation, read it more carefully. I wanted to know what makes you to argue with all editors on the Talk page because of your wrong understanding of the sources. By the way, you again are argue today with another editor about source content, and again the reason is your language barrier and misundersrtanding of the content. M.Karelin (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Shamash is another editor whos Native language is Russian, we have a new guest from Russian wikipedia today, your good friend from Russian wikipedia, who are argued today with a native English speaker about source content. This is funny how you claim to his words. This is really funny. M.Karelin (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I perfectly understand what is written in the sources. And you just do not read them. [117]--Путеец (talk) 22:29, 12 March 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:Canterbury Tail - Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

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.

---

• Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saboteurest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to report User:Canterbury Tail for conduct unbecoming of an administrator. After this admin incorrectly read a reference provided and reverted an edit, I pointed out their misstep and reverted the revert. Apparently this must have damaged their fragile ego. The admin then began to appear on articles which I had recently edited of which they zero edit history. This user admitted to following me on their own talk page after I warned them that I would report them if it continued. I provided numerous references for the infortmation in question. This editor then continued to troll me and began making erroneous claims, counterproductive edits/reverts, and adding unnecessary tags. Then this editor without notice, without following any procedures, and without involving a 3rd party, blocked me from editing for 1 week. I believe this editor blocked me from editing so that I could not report him for WP:FOLLOWING me which I was in the process of doing. This is not only an unjust block but a complete conflict of interest. This editor clearly lacks the judgment expected from an admin. Therefor their admin privileges should be reviewed, suspended, and/or stripped completely. Saboteurest (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't get that accomplished here - this post will generate more heat than light. Go to WP:ARBCOM Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Saboteurest (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That is spectacularly bad advice on a number of levels, including unwarranted escalation and the unclean hands of the OP. The OP's block log and the edit history of Ottawa Public Library should shed some light on why. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said filing was a good idea, only that this is the wrong place to request a revokation of tools. Editor has filed a case now. Anyone is free to address it at ARBCOM where the structured format will prevent a 6 week long ANi thread. This thread should be closed. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said filing was a good idea... Yes, that's why you pointed them to something you don't think is a good idea.

...only that this is the wrong place to request a revokation [sic] of tools Which is what you should have said if that's what you meant, instead of suggesting a bad course of action. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since Saboteurest's complaint to Arbcom lacks any usable data, it seems unlikely to be accepted. When Saboteurest filed this report they did not provide any diffs, so here are a few, though they mostly support the boomerang. A complaint about Saboteurest was previously filed at ANI in January, which led to his being blocked for retaliatory reverts. Since then Saboteurest has been blocked twice more by different admins. Canterbury Tail warned Saboteurest here in February, supplying four diffs of what he saw as the problem, e.g. calling other editors vandals and trolls. Saboteurest removed the notice. Canterbury Tail then proceded to a one-week block, with the rationale "Disruptive editing: Personal attacks, calling editors trolls, not respecting references, retalitory edits, accusing editors of being banned editors." Saboteurest filed an unblock request but it was declined by User:Huon. The full set of block notices and unblock requests can be seen in this version of Saboteurest's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! Then Canterbury Tail blocked them‽ That looks like a pretty bright line violation of WP:INVOLVED or am I missing something? I hope I am missing something. Jbh ^Talk 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Yep. Missed something. See below. Last edited: 01:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If being insulted by someone or warning someone made an admin involved, then we'd never get anything done here. As to the original edits that brought this about, it's murky at best. ansh666 01:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its not the insults it is the common editing here; CT adds clairify tag to article Saboteurest reverts and the conflict goes on. However, digging further it looks like that was likely a retaliatory edit since this complaint on CT's talk page happened before, not after, those diffs so it seems the common article editing arose from the conflict not the other way around. In other words 'I missed something'. Jbh ^Talk 01:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Without looking beyond this recounting of events, it looks like a block was unsurprising. superceeded03:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the OP took Legacypac's poor advice and has requested arbitration. One arbitrator has already declined saying: "Insufficient prior attempts at resolution. The suggestion in the ANI thread that this be brought straight to arbitration was premature. It is true that only ArbCom can desysop an administrator, but that does not mean we are the first stop when an editor disagrees with an admin action." See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well respectfully every time someone tries to detail perceived admin abuse and suggest tool removal a bunch of people say ANi is the wrong venue and the thread gets shut down a few hours later. He's not going to get what he wants here. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well respectfully you should understand situations and procedures before doling out advice whihch makes things worse. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about administrators are usually handled at AN, as far as I know. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's true that there are sometimes issues regarding administrator conduct that are so egregious they warrant ArbCom review immediately (e.g. WP:LEVEL1 and WP:LEVEL2), but speaking generally, I would expect that at least some prior attempt be made to resolve the issues without first pulling out the "I want a desysop" card. I haven't fully reviewed the circumstances here, but from what I can see, there are also credible concerns surrounding Saboteurest's conduct, such as taking an unnecessarily adversarial tone in most discussions they've been involved in. I'm inclined to say the solution is to recommend that Saboteurest reexamine their approach to dispute resolution on Wikipedia: it's not quite "us vs. them" here, but more seeing things from the other side and trying to adapt. For example, at Lansdowne Park, Saboteurest incorrectly labelled an edit as "vandalism" and another edit as a "useless tag by trouble causing troll". This is simply not how we collaborate on Wikipedia, and I suggest a bit of introspection on this would be healthy for Saboteurest. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree my edits and comments could have been voiced better. I have taken the time to read some of wikipedias editing policies. But my behaviour for which I have been disciplined for is not in question here. What is in question is the behaviour of an experienced admin who is clearly guilty of conflict of interest and stalking edits. This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated by any editor, especially an administrator. Saboteurest (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks – it's good to see that you understand the concerns for your behavior. Regarding Canterbury Tail, I have a different impression. I understand your frustration: after disagreeing with you, Canterbury Tail seems to have appeared in many other places where you have been editing. However, given your behavior, I think it was fairly reasonable for Canterbury Tail to do a spot check of your other contributions in order to see if there were any issues there. I don't get a sense of any malicious intent there. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, I do feel that this skirts a little close to the line, but on balance, I don't think their involvement was significant enough to prevent them from taking administrator action. (Warnings, ... advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.) Accordingly, I'm thinking this thread should be closed without any further action. In cases where you still disagree with their edits, try to understand why their edits were made. For example, if an editor adds a citation needed tag, examine whether the material is or is not supported by a citation, and if it isn't, provide one. Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And I would go so far as to add that he was obligated to check further. When an editor comes to my attention, I certainly review quickly to see if there are other concerns. In this case, I think there were/are. Per Mz7, I agree this thread could perhaps be closed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know why Legacypac seems so eager for someone to get a desyssop. And I'm not convinced that Canterbury Tales block was that unreasonable. Certainly this all needs to be reviewed and thought about, and possibly Canterbury Tales may want to look within as well. Clearly Saboteurest needs to take a less aggressive approach with others. And yes Saboteurest, your behavior is in question here as it is what lead to your block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to that charactorization of my response. Editor came here looking to desysop amd I pointed him at the only place that can happen. Not my fault he filed such a poor diffless case. I have no opinion of Canterbury Tales - not even sure I've encountered them before. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, since you didn't take the 2 minutes (or less) to look into the situation before giving the bad advice that led to the filing, I'm going to go with yes, it is your fault -- or at least you deserve blame. --Calton | Talk 03:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And, lo. It came to pass that Legacypac's prophecy came to pass.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not advise people to go to Arbcom unless confident there is a reasonable chance of a case being heard. This noticeboard cannot remove admin rights but it can, and should, consider issues arising. Perhaps others would see problems with the admin and could provide advice that the admin might consider. Or, the person raising the complaint might receive advice that their approach is not suitable and that the admin did the right thing. Either way, a community discussion is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 11 March 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.

As a post-closure note, I wanted to advise that a sockpuppet investigation of Saboteurest has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trung's emoji signatures

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.

---

Donald Trung has a history of emoji usage and has been banned from using them in certain cases as part of an unblock request by DoRD. See User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 1#February 2018 Unblock request. A few sections down from that DoRD urged them to remove emojis from their signature. Apparently they are back at it. In violation of WP:SIGIMAGE they have included images in their signature on dozens of pages. I started to remove some of them per the policy [118][119][120] and told them that they had to change their signature before I realized the extent of the problem. Considering part of their unblock involved emojis and other images and DoRD already asked them to knock it off with the images in their signatures I'm bringing this here for further community review. At the very least, Donald Trung has to go back and clean up the massive mess they have made on so many talk pages across the project. Putting unnecessary resources into showing their signatures just because they had to have images in it. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'd highly recommend a sig change too, just to avoid problems... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I just removed nearly 3450 bytes from one of his signatures, and given that he has violated the unblock terms he agreed to, the block has been reinstated. I will commence cleanup in the morning unless someone gets there first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I can help if needed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I got them all. At least the ones outside of their own user space. That has got to that the record though. A 3,000+ byte signature. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: He also did some disruptive emoji on his signatures at Meta-Wiki site and get warned by multiple admins over there in the past, see this commented by Ajraddatz in previously. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• That Donald Trung and his emojis should be im🍑ed. EEng 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: ?? Strawberried?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here, I'll blow it up for your: 🍑. Anyway, you're thinking of raspberry 😝. He gets plenty of those already. EEng 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Donald Trung (talk · contribs) is indeffed at meta (block log). The meta contribs and the current unblock request look like trolling to me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• comment This does not violate the terms of his unblock unless he did it on non talk pages? I made a suggestion re: increased sig visibility. Wish he'd take it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you're trying to help him, Dlohcierkim, but this does seem to explicitly violate the terms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yech. Oh. see what you mean. He has since amended his sig. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Beyond the emoji issue, I think Donald has made it abundantly clear by his actions here and on meta that he’s here to cause disruption (I don’t know how else to classify comments about good faith block evasion by a prolific sockmaster as anything but trolling.) His nonsense during the steward elections I think confirm he is only on Wikimedia projects to troll, that he has long since passed the point where he is a net-negative to the Wikimedia community at large, and is certainly one on the English Wikipedia. I’d support a global ban, but those typically require 3 project blocks to get traction, but barring that, I’m content that he stay blocked on en.wiki even if he fixes his signatures. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Whatever Tony said.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• He is banned from meta, ban him from enwiki too. This will make two. Then only one project will be required for the global ban. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Block - Donald Trung has made numerous valuable contributions in a subject (Asian numismatics) which has practically no other regular contributors. He's written extensive and well researched articles such as Qing dynasty coinage, Ryukyuan mon, Southern Song dynasty coinage, Guanzi (currency), Jiaozi (currency), Huizi (currency), and many other drafts in his user space. Blocking him over such a trifling issue as his use of emojis is gross overkill and detrimental to Wikipedia. I'd support a ban on his use of emojis and images in his signature, but please allow him to continue contributing content. -Zanhe (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It was the straw that broke the camels back. He's a gigantic troll whose disruption in non-article areas across projects far outweighs the limited good he does for mainspace. He's just a massive time waster, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what he's done in other wikis, but his edits on en-wiki seem to be concentrated in the article space, to which he's made enormous contributions. I contribute regularly to Asian history topics, and I know how much time and effort it takes to find reliable sources and write extensive articles like his. Topic ban him from non-article discussions if you have to, but please allow him to continue writing articles. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't work as a key part of being able to work on Wikipedia is the talk page: it requires collaboration with other editors. A topic ban from everywhere but article space would simply be ineffective. Since the issues with him have to deal with his communicating with other editors (the signature, his viewing block evasions as a possible positive thing, trying to start an RfC on emoji signatures, etc.) I'm confident he would find a new way to cause disruption on article talk pages. As I said above, I view this as a user who should be banned from all Wikimedia Foundation Wikis because his disruption and complaining wastes too much time (and pointless conversations like this over his antics). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear. I meant topic ban him from discussions not directly related to his content creations (such as unrelated AfDs, move requests, RfCs, etc). Doesn't make sense to ban him from discussing the content he's written on article talk pages (or his own talk page). -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

On the Dutch Wikipedia he has the habit of challenging long standing blocks for indef blocked users. Mostly without having a clue of the issue at hand. Those unblock request are, as of today, all refused. The Banner talk 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment editor has made a number of suggestions on his talk page and is seeking guidance. Could someone swing by and see if he can work out an unblock?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I swear I'm not trolling, but I do feel a devil's advocate is needed here.

• SIGIMAGE is about images; an emoji isn't an image (and anyone who thinks they're relevant to SIGIMAGE's "drain on server resources" rationale has no idea what they're talking about).
• "new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose" and "make it more difficult to copy text from a page" and "do not scale with the text" and "clutter up the 'file links' list" also don't apply.
• As for "make pages more difficult to read and scan" and "potentially distracting from the actual content" and "give undue prominence to a given user's contribution": how do these not equally apply to colored text and emoticons like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, which are widely used?

Just to be clear, I do find over-elaborate sigs distracting. It just seems to me SIGIMAGE is a vague mess. EEng 05:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue was that his signature contained files, not unicode characters. See Majora's removal: [121]. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Nonetheless my points stand. EEng 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trung was given rope and unblocked earlier than the six months standard offer period based on conditions. He was explicitly told not to have emojis in his signature.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block – User has a cross-wiki history of toeing up to multiple lines in the sand and then wikilawyering his way around it ad nauseam. He has been given multiple chances on multiple wikis and we should just move on and ignore. Nihlus 07:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia is not a social network (WP:NOTSOCIAL) and along with that goes all trappings of social networks, including emoji. While collaboration and a certain camaraderie is expected among editors for the sake of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not here to as a place to express your "special flair". I endorse any movement towards limiting signature lengths to eliminate the opportunity to do so. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block, oppose unblock of any kind. Reading through the en-wiki and meta talk pages, Trung clearly doesn't understand what disruption is. WP:CIR - and not just regarding writing articles (which seem okay on first glance), but also in communicating and collaborating with others. The active discussions about possible unblocking indicates to me that his behaviour hasn't changed and is unlikely to change with any further chances. ansh666 08:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block Normally, I'm all for extra WP:ROPE—but with the consistent and persistent disruption that this user has already been responsible for and forgiven for previously, Berean Hunter's diff takes on a new significance. Being told not to do something and then immediately doing it is the epitome of trolling. The vernacular, in fact, applies. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• For informational purposes, User:Namlong618 and User:Lumia930uploader are two of his older accounts. He should be telling us all others that he has had. Albeit old, he did some illegitimate socking with those and they weren't included in his sockpuppet investigation.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Been patrolling DT's userpages, and I won't comment on whether he is a troll or not or how much rope is enough etc, but I do want to state that having some emoji in your signature is quite Okay and has nothing to do with "spcial networks". L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

Noting User_talk:Donald Trung#Unblock_conditions, of which I think some people commenting above may not be aware. I personally have no issue with unblocking under these conditions (one of which is that if I think he's goofing around I have the authority to unilaterally ban him without discussion), but given the number of "oppose unblock under any circumstances" comments above, I'm reluctant to unblock without at least some agreement from others.

Given that one of the conditions to which DT has agreed is not to comment in Wikipedia space, he can't comment on this thread even if he's unblocked; could I suggest that anyone with any queries for him, conditions they feel should be added, or information/opinions they feel he should be aware of comment there, rather then (or as well as) here. ‑ Iridescent 18:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I've said it above, but putting it here to comment now that there are unblock conditions. With great respect for the work Iri and Cyber have done, the calculus I have for any unblock or unban request is do the odds of disruption outweigh the odds of good work. I think the answer here is very clearly yes, they do. Donald Trung is a user who has used up his chances long ago. He socked here and was globally locked subsequently. The stewards agreed to a global unlock, which in my view was his last chance. We agreed to unblock him here and he instantly went back to being disruptive. On meta he is now indefinitely blocked because he decided to troll the steward elections and confirmations, and he got blocked here for gaming his unblock restrictions. Even in the unblock conditions that Iri and Cyber laid out, it has been a game of back and forth with him trying to find every possible exception.
  At the end of the day it comes down to this: if we cannot trust someone to be a part of our community and take part in community governance, which is what project space is, they should not be allowed to edit, and the disruption they have caused in one area is likely to migrate to others, just in different forms. I have seen no evidence on any Wikimedia Project that any attempt to give this user a 2nd or 3rd chance has ever been repaid with anything but more wasted time. This user is a prime candidate for a global ban. Let's not let him back in. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'd like to clarify issue with one of the conditions. @Iridescent: There is an exemption where he's allowed to participate in discussions that directly affect him.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. His response to those conditions only solidified my opinion on the matter and led me to comment above. ansh666 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock His immediate request about when a repeal is possible, means - to my opinion - that he is not taking the conditions serious nor is fully accepting them. The Banner talk 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock There is good suspicion to believe that Donald will find a good way to cross the line with these restrictions. !dave 21:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support this in 6 months time, but considering he fairly blatantly violated his explicit unblock restrictions, some form of block is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) voted below power~enwiki (π, ν)
• Oppose unblock per my comments on their talk page. We just tried the "unblock with conditions" a month ago, and they apparently went through the exact same thing on meta. He can have the WP:SO now. Swarm ♠ 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'd consider him already having used his standard offer with the previous unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• On balance, I think I support unblocking Donald Trung, albeit weakly. I'm sympathetic towards the consensus here that Donald was already effectively on his final chance, having just recently successfully appealed a global lock on Meta Wiki, and it is therefore perfectly understandable that many editors would view giving him yet another "last chance" as an exercise in futility. Having said that, I'm still somehow convinced that the restrictions to which he's agreed would address the overarching concerns relating to his participation in Wikimedia projects. If this request were to be accepted, it would be with the understanding that any violation of the terms of his unblock would result in an immediate site ban, subject to the same appeals process as any other. These sanctions would give Donald a chance to demonstrate his value as an editor, all the while mitigating the regrettable tendency of his Wikipedia-space contributions to ferment enmity between himself and others. This request for unblock is not going to be successful and my words will have little effect on the outcome - I can accept that. As unfortunate as it is for me to admit, it may be necessary for Donald to be separated from the project for the time being. But I will continue to believe that he has great potential hidden beneath the silliness. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per the reasons I mentioned above. Nihlus 08:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I agree with Kurtis. Giving this editor yet another "last chance" may be naive, but I think the unblock conditions will hopefully prevent further disruption or drama. The worst case situation is that he goes right back to his previous disruption and gets insta-blocked. He should have a mentor, though. Some people need to have rules explained to them, and some people just need to hear, "Be excellent to each other." I think Donald is one of the people who needs rules explained to him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Same issue as on metawiki. User is playing the system. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock - most people seem to oppose unblock based on his behaviour on meta, which I'm admittedly unfamiliar with. The current block is triggered by a trivial technical issue (the use of images/templates in his signature, which he quickly changed), and that's not a solid reason from which to argue for an indef block. As I pointed out above, the user has made extensive and high-quality content contributions to English wiki (see, e.g., Qing dynasty coinage). I've been writing on Asian history topics for eight years and I know how precious regular contributors like him are. Despite his sometimes immature behaviour (which seems more annoying than malicious), he is a net positive IMO and deserves one more chance. -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He shows the same behaviour also on this Wikipedia and on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not only meta. The Banner talk 22:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• In case it's not obvious from my comments on his talkpage, support unblock. Per the conditions to which he's agreed, any goofing around—as defined by me, not by him—will result in an instant and permanent block, so even if he immediately becomes disruptive he's only wasting a couple of minutes of someone else's time and a couple of minutes of my own. As a number of people have alluded to, he does seem to have something useful to add, and most of the issues on en-wikipedia appear to be related to incompetence rather than malice. (I honestly don't care what he has or hasn't done at Meta; as with Commons, they tolerate crap which we'd never put up with here, and crack down on things which we'd consider trivial. Their community standards are so out of sync with ours, someone's record there has no real relevance to their status here.) ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  OK, having actually looked at his Meta block, I definitely don't consider it relevant. He was blocked for opposing all candidates in the last round of Steward elections on Meta—since it wouldn't raise an eyelid let alone an eyebrow if someone opposed every candidate in the Arbcom elections here, even back before secret ballots, I'm certainly not going to punish someone here for not being aware that the relatively obscure Meta works to a different set of rules. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  Of course he knew how Meta works. He was plenty active there after his block here and amazingly was able to talk them out of a global lock. The reason people who have dealt with him before are fed up is because this kind of back and forth trying to find a supertailored sanction for me while complaining about how unfair the blocking/locking policy is to him is basically his MO. The back and forth with you, DoRD, and Cyber is exactly what one would expect from him. He’ll find a way to cause disruption, claim ignorance the first 30 times it’s pointed out, get blocked again, and we’ll be right back here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  Wow... I mean, I recognized him as the one who opposed all Steward elections for his own individualized reasons, and I understood why people found it to be vexatious - his rationales generally didn't make much sense to anyone else. However, simply having an unpopular opinion should never be grounds for a block by itself. I'd assumed that the problems on Meta were much broader than that. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per Iri. I wish to clarify on Point 3 that as soon as DT realises he has made an edit logged out, he go and post a message logged in on the IP's TP specifically stating that he was responsible. And if that would reveal his IRL location to us, so be it and tough for him. No "Well 3 hours later I realised I was logged out at the time, and now a week has passed and I haven't done anything yet" dumbness. I understand that detecting an unlogged out edit is pretty hard: (double checking my IP, I see I edited logged out on 2 separate occasions this month, and only now just found out about it), and trying to determine if DT knew he was logged out or purposefully IPedited is an exercise in ABF and Dowsing, but admins know his IP (from the CU) and can keep tabs on any possible duplicit activity. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock, albeit with reservations, largely per Iridescent. I do think that the user's behaviour at Meta is relevant; even though the matters might appear trivial from an enwiki perspective the way that they went through their chances quickly there hardly inspired confidence. But given that this user's disruption is primarily in the "annoying" rather than "malicious" category, and given that it's Iridescent's time that will be wasted if they start to cause problems again, why not? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
• Support per Iridescent. COnsidering the scrutiny he will be under, he won't get far. And if he relapses, I'll be waiting. If he holds with current set of conditions, it will be a net positive.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If he again violates unblock conditions, then he will not receive another WP:SO. Given the support for a CBAN now, another SO and another said of appeals would be so far beyond the Pale, you'd need Musk's Space Tesla to get there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Iridiscent. If he gets reblocked, we shouldn't have to rediscuss this - he'll be banned, and then there'll only be SO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock and give him a chance to collaborate. Let's hope he will be alright and have a watch over him. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock with those conditions. I know people are talking about disruption outside of the emojis, but I've not seen any evidence presented about that that would justify keeping him blocked irrespective of the emoji issues (what happened on meta is not on enwiki). Ultimately, our guidelines for signatures are kind of a mess, and our enforcement even more a mess. There are other people's signatures in this very thread that distract just as much as an emoji (granted, not an animated emoji.. *shudder*). There are other people who use emoticons and unicode pictures in their signature which are no less distracting. If someone wants to propose disallowing them at WP:SIG, I will support. To be clear, I'd prefer signatures not use any text highlighting, not include extra information/quotes, not include non-latin characters that serve only to stylize/obfuscate, and for all of them to actually type out the user's username for crying out loud.</petpeevegriping> ... but we allow all of that, which makes it harder for me to sympathize with arguments that use of emojis is so disruptive as to merit a long block when the user is willing to agree to conditions involving a normal signature. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock He edits using IP addresses to evade his block and he was globally locked. He did appeal his lock at Meta and got his account unlocked but knowing the Meta admins are not always going to look at the English Wikipedia as some do not look at or edit the English Wikipedia or even know English . They may not be aware of the issues on the English Wikipedia so I oppose unblock for at lease 6 months and he should edit another Wikimedia wiki before I would support a unblock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.117.105 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock the unblock terms are restrictive enough that I'm fine with a "time-served" one-week block. If he's blocked again for a similar reason in the next 6 months, I plan to oppose any "Standard Offer" unblock from that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock per others' assurances that this editor has had something productive to offer. I suggest the restrictions on what they are allowed to do with their signature be replaced by a simple prohibition on using any custom signature code, i.e. they must go to Special:Preferences and delete everything in the signature box, so that their signature is the plain, default signature. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 12 March 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.

Dr. M Ravi Kanth is NOTHERE

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.

---

Dr. M Ravi Kanth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dr. M Ravi Kanth has three times tried to create a biography page for themself. They keep replacing their user page with the same content. They do not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. If sock puppets show up to recreate the biography, I can protect it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 13 March 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.

Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing by User:Thescarid

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

---

After indulging in some edit wars and disruptiveness against RN1970 over their own repeated addition of unsourced or misleading edits at Parrotfish[122] and Sparisoma cretense[123] (well discussed by RN1970 on the relevant talk pages), Thescarid started deleting talk page comments [124][125][126][127][128]. When told to cut that out, they brought in a copper-plated sockpuppet AnteRN1970 to back them up [129][130], and engaged in some shadow-boxing [131]. I would request that the sockpuppet be squashed, and Thescarid be advised strongly to keep the playground tactics out of the encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User is indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 13 March 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.

Tmyrick0916

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.

---

Tmyrick0916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been low-level edit warring against me and ClueBotNG at

• Constellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Triple Canopy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(two merged companies) for over a month now. Most recent edit here. Their edits appear to be blatant promotion/whitewashing and have replaced virtually all reliably sourced content with unsourced PR cruft. I have warned this user about COI and edit warring, and of course there are the automated ClueBotNG messages as well. Crickets in response. This looks like WP:NOTHERE. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 13 March 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.

Help from administrators to help with US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211

Dear administrators. I would like a bit of help on dealing with the article US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211. This is an article on the front page of a plane crash today. The issue is that 2 editors seem to be heading towards a edit/revert war. They're not quite there yet, but you can see how the lack of communication is not helping. I am a 3rd party, that put some edits on and am seeing from the sidelines what it happening. I have no stake in this issue. However it is just getting embarrassing now, and I have suggested a polite discussion on the talk page will help. I do not want to rock the boats, but being a front page article something should be done. What is normally done in this situation? What is the wikipedia equivalent of a quiet word on the side? Or does the page need protecting? Help gratefully received. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As an aside the history of the article will let you know who is involved. I have started an issue on the talk page here: [[132]]. Again I have no personal feelings on the content (apart from accuracy), however the lack of understanding between the 2 editors will not help the article. One is at least trying to discuss it. I will leave the issue to the administrators and their experience. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on street fighting

2600:6C5A:6D7F:F573:0:ACA5:8E03:EC7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reverted to an older addition with large amounts of unreferenced content on street fighting. I reverted them back and explained what the problem was on their talk page. They decided that they would just revert me without any reason. Edit warring isn't a good look, so I am wondering if we could get something done now. Thanks, talk to !dave 09:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a passing observation: wouldn't you expect an article on street fighting to have edit warring, of any article? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Codename Lisa

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, Codename Lisa was blocked from editing. She left Wikipedia immediately.

I have several question about this and about your procedure here. Of course, these questions are for information only. (I very much doubt you can bring back Codename Lisa, even if you wanted.)

1. Codename Lisa tried various changes to Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1 as well as various reverts. She was blocked for 3RR violations. The other user, Headbomb, exclusively reverted. How is it possible for Codename Lisa to violate 3RR and not Headbomb? This is mathematically impossible.
2. David Eppstein completely diffused the situation. Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1 had become stable. So, a block wouldn't serve any purpose. I thought blocks were supposed to be preventative. Why is Codename Lisa blocked then?
3. Codename Lisa always bragged that she had an impeccable record of obeying admin commands. Why didn't any admin command her to stop? It would be the equivalent of a block.
4. I am looking at the edit history. Headbomb literally reverted everything Codename Lisa did. That is definitely bad behavior. Why is he never warned?

74.82.35.64 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@74.82.35.64: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#CL-Timeline for why your assumptions about this are off. I was not the only one who reverted CL, not by a long shot. As for why everything was reverted, this has been hashed out at Help talk:CS1 and in the edit summaries of reverts. But in essence it's that none of the attempted changes were net positives (for instance changing "academic journals" to "journals" is bad because unqualified 'journal' is ambiguous, and could be confused with magazines, newspapers, diaries, and so on). The cycle is WP:BRD. CL was bold, they were reverted, but they never attempted discussion or attempted to gain consensus for their changes. And when we attempted to discuss things, CL refused to participate, and refused to engage beyond further edit warring and making personal attacks against multiple editors (beyond myself, they also attacked Trappist the Monk, who protected the template during the dispute). Had CL tried to engage the community and explain their proposed changes, it may have been possible to find improvements to whatever problem CL perceived, but since CL never explained any of their actions, we're left to speculate about what those could have been. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out CL will still be welcomed to participate at Help talk:CS1, should they chose to return. Assuming of course, they try to get consensus for their changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Codename Lisa was a very problematic editor who was justifiably brought to ANI on many occasions. I'm surprised this retirement was by choice. When you harass a problem editor who isn't a vested contributor, you rarely get sanctioned even if you deserve it. 100.33.106.43 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Extreme case of WP:IDHT, if you're aware even Headbomb faced huge problems over conduct and I'm sure they are getting through it. Learn to deal with it or you can retire if you are not fine with it. It's a system but it works, even if there's a huge lack of efficiency. If CL was actually innocent, this would be a different deal. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 17:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@QEDK: "... if you're aware even Headbomb faced huge problems over conduct"? I'm not really sure what that refers to here exactly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your RFA where such issues where brought up, not that you had conduct issues recently. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 17:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a part of this that requires the intervention of administrators and experienced editors or can this just as well take place on user talk pages? Because it looks like the latter, and this is getting fairly close to grave-dancing around a currently block and apparently retired user. GMG^talk 17:25, 14 March 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.

E-960

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.

---

E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been an ongoing issue over at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, Including borderline PA's, but certainly off topic comments [[133]] and which spilled over into a pretty clear PA at a related article [[134]]. Now (however) they seem to be canvasing [[135]].

I think an Admin needs to step in and maybe explain to then what they are doing wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 15 March 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:71.86.65.224

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.

---

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

This IP has had a history of warnings and does not appear to heed any of them despite a recent block. Continued disruption on List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes with mass changes and reference removal is an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No edit summaries, no talk page responses. Blocked two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We're blocking for no edit summaries? Bring it on! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We're blocking for no attempts at addressing other editors' concerns using some form of communication. I haven't lost my mind (yet). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 15 March 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 Binksternet attempting to abuse RFC to overturn previously achieved concensus

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:Binksternet created the following section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=830484289&oldid=830478310 after a dispute was resolved to leave a quote in the WP page. Talk page discussing this can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers#Removal_of_material_(again). Upon getting consensus to keep the disputed quote, the user opened a new RFC to try and overturn the previously decided consensus by bringing in outside people. Consensus was achieved by a clear majority of people involved in the dispute. S806 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Immediately after this diff pretty much confirming that we have consensus, the new RFC was created to try to overturn the consensus we agreed upon after an entire week of debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=830478310&oldid=830281455 S806 (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not an "abuse" to start up an RFC to get more input on something that has a small local consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 04:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

And if consensus has already been achieved and we were closing down? S806 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What of it? It's a lot of arguing by a handful of editors. It's a good thing to open it up to more editors. That's why we have them in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 04:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the way of it. It simply feels like he "didn't get his way", so he's attempting to get his way by bringing in different people. S806 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 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 IP at Passion gap (dental body modification in South Africa)

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 is kinda out of the blue, but IP 49.195.45.202 (talk · contribs) showed up at the article Passion gap and keeps inserting content insisting it's a conspiracy by illegal dentists, that people who do it are "victims" rather than as the article says it being a popular fashion, and insisting that it does not qualify as a body modification because it impedes dental function.

So basically, IP is here to WP:Right great wrongs by providing an OR and POV assessment of a cultural practice in Cape Town. I've given them extremely clear Edit Summaries, posted on their Talk page (they've never replied), left warnings, etc. to no avail. What to do? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP editor's contributions have some issues with NPOV and style. I'd recommend asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP (or an admin may see it here) to force that user to discuss their changes on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A reminder: reversions of edits from IP contributors aren't exempt from the three revert rule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm semiprotecting it for a little while. The IP edits are clearly problematic, for the reasons elucidated above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably for the best. I saw this discussion before any replies. I was tempted to do the classic, "content dispute, why is the talk page empty" shtick. But the edits look bad enough that I just couldn't, particularly with the attempt to engage on the IP talk page and the fact that they should have seen it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 14 March 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 IP editing

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.

---

Nationalsocialist image or empty train tracks along the Hudson River?

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

This IP just got a final warning for their disruptive editing at Hermann Göring, and then went right on doing their thing. Given their edit summary "go ahead.... try to block the IP address ... I want to see what happens when it comes out whom you blocked" [136], I'm thinking this is someone we could probably do without. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Too bad, I was about to share their talk page comment that called me a sock and a Nazi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to share it anyway, because it was just too good, but it's been rev-del'd by the blocking admin. It seems that the IP could tell that I was a Nazi from the "Nationalsocialist" picture on my user page.

Some times this place is just too, too strange. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about their talk page comment since I never saw them but the edit summary here [137] would seem to amply demonstrate why this isn't someone we want on wikipedia. Actually their very first edit used a shorter version of this wacky conspiracy theory to justify their edit [138]. Maybe this is WP:beans, but funnily enough there is zero mention of this conspiracy theory at Nazi Germany, so they seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ve blocked a second IP (same user) for three months as an open proxy. P.S. They did give an explanation for their comment about the picture but it’s not worth repeating. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think increasing the edit-summary length was a mistake. EEng 05:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Just now beginning to think that? Natureium (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Who decided to do that, and why? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. The old limit of 128 (?) 255 was a bit cramped, but 1000 is larger than many articles, and invites bloviation. EEng 14:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

See discussion here. Natureium (talk) 15:12, 14 March 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.

Problematic edit history: promotional, copyright violations and original research

Assistance with Ezwider (talk · contribs) will be appreciated; I've asked for a user block, to no avail, and requested rev/deletion of some copyright violations, which Diannaa helpfully answered.

First came the long skein of promotional edits, the most blatant of which were at Cathedraltown, Ontario, and are now hidden among the reversion/deletion posts. To a lesser extent, similar edits were made at the related Cathedral of the Transfiguration (Markham), for which some diffs can be provided: [139]; [140]; [141]; [142]; [143]; [144]; [145]; and , finally, my restoration of the last non-promotional version: [146]. The editor gave this erroneous and misleading description of their edits [147].

Since being warned away from blatant promotional and plagiarized content, the latest pattern is that of continuing original research, as at [148]; [149]; [150]; [151] and [152].

My take is that the editor's contributions are for the most part appropriate for a personal blog, memoir, or in the case of the Cathedraltown edits, press releases. But my admonitions alone are fairly futile. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I will attempt to remonstrate with them; their talk page is nothing but canned notices. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The notices I left were very much in response to the unacknowledged and unrepentant volley of unsourced content with promotional intent. No secret that I think a block was long past due. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just checking in - I see that the user in question (while certainly made edits that are unreferenced), they haven't edited since yesterday. Are there still ongoing issues or concerns that need to still be looked into? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

At the very least a name change would be good, considering his name is an actual product used for rolling cigarettes. If nothing else, the name may confuse people into thinking he's related somehow to that company  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated use of poor sources in BLPs by User Vidal 1077

• Vidal 1077 (talk · contribs)

Blocked in August for using poor sources in BLPs despite numerous warnings. Continuing with additions of the same and similarly poor sources such as ethnicelebs.com, famechain.com, familytreenow.com, famousbirthdays.com, geni.com, mylife.com, nndb.com, and therichest.com: [153] [154] [155] [156] --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at an open Request For Comments re faith healing being a pseudoscience

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 folks, I would be grateful for some input with regards to a disagreement with User:Kingofaces43

On the faith healing talk page there is currently a request for comments about whether faith healing meets the criteria of a pseudoscience with disagreements about sources.

Given that kingsofaces has rejected community input, which was unaminously against him, about whether discretionary sanctions apply, at the faith healing talk page but has template warned me that I violated them and am at risk of block, etc, I have brought this issue here. I would like to point out that I am not angry, just perplexed and slightly unnerved. Read below, please:

During this current RFC, on the faith healing talk page, a discussion ensued about whether ArbCom discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience should be applied, prior to the RFC closing and determining that faith healing is indeed a pseudoscience. The consensus was that because a previous request for comments determined that faith healing is not a pseudoscience that discretionary sanctions cannot be applied until the previous RFC is 'overturned'. The ArbCom template for pseudoscience topics was then removed from the page, after being inappropriately, it seems, briefly applied.

User:Kingofaces43 feels that I personally attacked him. The diff, which shows the alleged personal attack, is here. In my view, there was no personal attack because no one attacked any one as a person, we just criticised in a mildly belittling way each other's arguments which is fairly normal in a trade of positions of disagreement. In this case, if you study the diff, Kingofaces43 criticised an editor's 'oppose' vote by writing that it was a case of 'special pleading'.... to 'pseudoscientific' belief in the supernatural. I then responded by pointing out that I felt kingofaces43 was confusing 'unscientific' with 'pseudoscientific (pretends to be or resembles but is not science)' and pointed out that this broad definition he describes would technically label my little niece's belief in Santa and the Easter bunny as pseudoscientific. To be quite honest, I think we were as bad as each other and the interaction did not reach the threshold of a personal attack, either from him or from me. I think the interaction should have been seen as a bit of fun disagreement.

User:Kingofaces43 rejected consensus of the community - described above, which included people who shared his POV and notified me that ArbCom sanctions for pseudoscience applied to the faith healing article and implied that I was in breach of them for what he felt was a personal attack. I felt that his templating of me was actually a personal attack, since the community had rejected his view that discretionary sanctions applied - at least for now.

The problem is that I am nervous to participate any further in any articles relating to pseudoscience. I have been a member of the FRINGE noticeboard for years (search archives) and have engaged in several discussions there where I argued against FRINGE POVs, so I certainly am not a pseudoscience pusher. Does this diff mean that if I put a foot wrong in the faith healing article that I will be blocked?

I freely admit I enjoy exchanging opinions on controversial or disputed subject matters and I surely hope I have not offended Kingsofaces43, who I think does seem to be a productive Wikipedian. I do not want Kingsofaces43 to be blocked or otherwise punished. I think it is cool he has a different opinion from me and enjoyed, for a short time, interacting with him. I hope he is having a good day.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're asking here or what you want. I don't think anyone can guarantee you that no DS apply since the RFC is still ongoing. But while avoiding editing is one solution, the other one is simply to be on your best behaviour so no discretionary sanctions will be applied to you. Frankly though, I see no edits by you to the article. Your edits seem to be all to the talk page. More than that, nearly all of your edit seem to relate to whether or not it's a pseudoscience. Heck nearly all of that talk page is currently taken up by discussion relating to whether faith healing is a pseudoscience. So regardless of whether or not faith healing is a pseudoscience you probably could say the current talk page falls under 'pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted'. In other words, if someone is discussing whether or not something is a pseudoscience on a page where nearly every thing is to do with whether or not something is a pseudoscience, I don't think anyone should be surprised that pseudoscience DS may apply. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What you gave me was what I was looking for, an informed opinion. Editors formed an opinion in this talk page discussion that Kingofaces43 was wrong to apply discretionary sanctions and the associated template to the article. But you have provided an opinion that Kingofaces43 may have been right after all. I think your advice about treading carefully and being on my best behaviour is the best approach here. Thanks for reviewing this issue and commenting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's more or less where things stand, and the use of DS issue here is pretty much a tempest in a teacup. The pseudoscience/fringe DS are there to deal with problematic behavior in topics or discussions related to pseudoscience/fringe topics, or deal with tendentious editors that try to make a sourced pseudoscientific concept appear not to be so in content discussions. No one can realistically claim that the DS don't apply when someone is actively engaged in discussion directly about pseudoscience, etc. All I've done so far is formally notify Literaturegeek about the DS, mostly associated with a warning about misrepresenting editor comments and personalizing disputes that crossed the line into behavior issues. If issues continue to escalate, it will be dealt with at the appropriate venue at WP:AE, so there doesn't appear to much that can really be done here at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• 1. While consensus is that a topic is not pseudo/fringe science, it is not subject to any discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience, no matter how much people might wish it is or how much it might actually need it. 2. A previous RFC confirmed that 'Faith healing' is not pseudoscience (mainly due to it making zero claims as to being based on science 'God cured my cancer' is not a scientific claim. It is outright faith-based woo.) 3. Consensus may change. 4. The best way to gauge consensus on a contentious topic is through an RFC. 5. That is currently happening. 6. If the RFC outcome should determine it is pseudoscience, then obviously that makes the article subject to any relevant discretionary sanctions. And as a last note: tagging something that has previously been discussed and found not to be a topic, as being subject to discretionary sanctions on that topic, then arguing that editors who reject that are themselves subject to discretionary sanctions for discussing it is an amazing abuse of process. By that rationale it doesnt matter what case the discretionary sanctions are linked to, if you then claim merely discussing them makes the editor subject to them. Its ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OID, please strike your comment that it is an "amazing abuse of process" as that's getting into misrepresenting editors. Discussions about pseudoscience/fringe are always going to be at the very core the pseudoscience/fringe DS wherever they occur even without the broadly construed qualification. As you even state, there's plenty of woo in the topic, which still falls under the DS. No individual RfC at an article can change that, and no one can claim that pseudoscience is not being discussed at the talk page or discussed by sources that are currently under discussion. If someone does not like that, they can try to argue that to ArbCom to get them to overturn the DS.

Plus, this all is basically just saying that since pseudoscience is under discussion, editors are held to a higher standard for being under good behavior and not trying to push pseudoscience/fringe, etc. There should not be any opposition to that in any topic (especially since it just reflects our policies and guidelines) even if it wasn't applying the pseudoscience DS to discussions of pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 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:Bstanard98

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 from WP:AIV

 – Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Bstanard98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Kings Dominion (diff): vandalism after final warning. Continued disruptive editing after final warning. McDoobAU93 11:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. This looks like a new user who does not understand a lot of our guidelines like MOS and 3RR. Pointing them in the right direction might be more productive than dropping lots of warnings on their talk page. Please also remember WP:BITE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping McDoobAU93 -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not editing when the user is doing exactly the same thing over and over again with no explanation and with edits that are clearly wrong. It's not a matter of formatting or a difference of opinion - it is JUST PLAIN WRONG. However, I yield to whatever decision you make. --McDoobAU93 14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong ≠ vandalism. Vandalism requires malicious intent which I seriously doubt here. You are undoubtedly correct that their editing is wrong, and arguably it is disruptive. But again we are dealing with a new editor. If after pointing them in the right direction the issues persist then WP:ANI <<< is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe it could be malicious. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but not after the editor keeps adding the same thing again and again. They may have few edits, but they know what they're doing. --McDoobAU93 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's time to migrate this to ANI where other opinions can be garnered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ping to moved discussion McDoobAU93 -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say on this matter. The user was warned about their edits multiple times, and continues to add the EXACT SAME CONTENT over and over. They know what they're doing and choose not to communicate. In this particular case, silence = acceptance of the warning. If nothing is going to be done, that's fine. I'll drop the matter and allow the admins to focus on more important matters. --McDoobAU93 16:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd sent them a personalised message instead of hitting the Twinkle BFG repeatedly, they might have understood what you were getting at. I see IPs turn up to Genesis (band) and fiddle about with infobox parameters all the time, but I usually AGF they think they're doing the right thing. Since these might have been good faith edits, you might have been skirting up to the line of 3RR. Next time, drop a note on the talk page first (and a proper one, not Twinkle boilerplate). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, instead of defending the alleged vandal, look at the edits ... these are not formatting issues or point-of-view issues. It's not even an issue of something being uncited. It is - say it with me now - COMPLETELY WRONG. It also appears that we're tossing WP:BURDEN out as well if this is being permitted to continue, since the onus is on the user for making the change to the article. Again, good to know. I'm all for working with new users who are making legitimate mistakes; these are not legitimate mistakes. As I said previously, I'm not doing anything else here, especially since now I'm being accused of something and I know how WP:BOOMERANG works. The editor will return, they'll make the changes, I'll leave them alone, the article will be wrong, and everyone's feelings will be protected. --McDoobAU93 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell who's right and who's wrong (at least from the edits you both made) because you both edit warred without leaving any edit summaries or any actual discussion about the content! I picked a diff at random and found ... a formatting issue. Anyway, like I said, the best thing to do is leave a personalised message on the article or user's talk page. Something like, "Hi, regarding your change to Kings Dominion here, Paramount Parks sold the park in 2006 and is now run by Cedar Fair - you can read more about this here. Let me know if you have any questions." THEN you have bases covered and we can sanction them for hearing problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, THIS - the entire sequence of edits that was cherry-picked to get that one. That sequence is a variant of the earlier ones too, where the user has had ample opportunity to ask why it keeps getting removed. Again, I'm letting it be. I will not make any more changes to their edits or deal with that editor going forward. They can do whatever they wish and I won't fix it or touch it, even if it's to my own personal talk/user page. --McDoobAU93 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Since it seems McDoobAU93 is unwilling to deal with this further, I've posted a message based on the above on Bstanard98's talk page an also opened a discussion on the article talk page. We'll see what happens next. Hopefully Bstanard98 gets the message or at least joins the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - You said "you both edit warred without leaving any edit summaries" ... wrong and wrong. Yes, I am done with the matter, but would like to set the record straight. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lose the attitude. --Tarage (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion has probably run its useful course. If an uninvolved editor wants to close it, I don't think anyone is likely to object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 15 March 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.

Content dispute for the Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6 article

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

---

Further to this, I am requesting administrative intervention for the content dispute with regards to the Carl Benjamin news item on the current events portal for 6 March 2018. What started out as a bilateral attempt to initially resolve this dispute between myself and Wakari07 on the talkpage attracted the intervention of two users (PeterTheFourth and NorthBySouthBaranof) who individually have exhibited a history of edit-warring on similar articles which involves people with a relationship (real or alleged) with the alt-right (PeterTheFourth has most recently edit warred on the Carl Benjamin article and while NorthBySouthBaranof has most recently edit warred on the Doug Wardlow article), both of whom reverted the text to Wakari07's version BEFORE either user even provided an explanation on the talkpage (let alone an explanation which addressed the substance of my OP). In the case of NorthBySouthBaranof I further note that user's incivility which s/he displayed when the user described me as a "weasel-word edit-warrior" in violation of WP:AGF and has gotten him/her into trouble before. Since the consensus that now being claimed to exist (and with which the original disputant is bandwagoning in an attempt to short-circuit the debate) is defective as the intervenors were not impartial observers to the dispute to begin with, I am appealing to an administrator to either resolve the content debate directly or (at the very least) enforce the rules which would allow for a genuine consensus for the wording of the news item to be established.Wingwraith (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Describing you as an "edit-warrior" is not a personal attack, given that you reverted material four times in 27 hours, a clear gaming of the 3-revert rule. It is merely a fact that three separate editors have reverted your edits, on the grounds that your preferred version introduces weasel words and is not an improvement of the article. Given that, it is your responsibility to initiate discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for your proposed version. If you can't, reverting everyone who opposes you is not a productive path. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I further note that the user's extraordinary history of edit-warring at Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 indicates that they have a serious problem understanding WP:3RR. I'm counting a dozen or so reverts on that page. They're lucky not to be blocked for that kind of disruption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said that the edit-warrior tag was a personal attack, and to be clear what I said was that it was evidence that you were not debating out of good faith (which is true) and that it fits into an established pattern of the problematic way in which you engage with editors with whom you disagree. (which is also true) There is no 3RR gaming (and in any case you shouldn't act like you have the moral high ground when it comes to edit warring given your edit warring on the Doug Wardlow page) and the weasel words assertion is ludicrous, particularly in light of the fact my version of the text reproduced verbatim how the article to which the news item in cited actually described Carl Benjamin (Violence breaks out as protesters storm King’s College London event featuring controversial YouTuber). Your appeal to numbers is a deceptive representation of the facts as is your implication that you are interested in building consensus given your history through your edit warring of refusing to compromise (unlike myself) with anybody who disagrees with you which would just destroy the integrity of the whole consensus-building process. I stand by my assertion, you don't care to resolve this dispute collaboratively and the proof is in what you did: you reverted the article to Wakari07's version of the text without providing an explanation of your revert beforehand on the talkpage even though my comments made it clear that there was an ongoing debate there on this issue after which you gave a nonsensical one-liner that didn't address any of the points that I raised in my OP; a constructive editor would have discussed the dispute on the talkpage first before making any changes to the article itself as Icarosaurvus did here in moderating another content dispute myself and Wakari07. Ideally an administrator do exactly what Icarosaurvus did (or just allow Icarosaurvus him/herself to moderate the dispute), but it's obvious that you wouldn't want that since it's your MO to ensure victory at all costs by reducing everything to a numbers game and would accordingly see this ANI as a waste of time. Wingwraith (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've full-protected the page, as I already planned to do if the edit warring continued. But this isn't really the place to report content disputes. Admins don't settle content disputes. All we can do is block/protect. The onus is on you to pursue dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 12:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we seriously need to consider a strict 1RR on Wingwraith. Probably Wakari07 too but I haven't looked into their edits so well (however it did look like most of the time Wingwraith was reverting Wakari07). If I counted right, on Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 they made 3 reverts in less than 10 minutes after about 14 in under 2h30 minutes which was after another 5 in just under 2 hours; with less than 24 hours between all (i.e. 22!) these reverts, and apparently no edits that weren't reverts. (I think some of the revers was with editing as well as reverting.) Yes this was 6 days ago, but their 4 reverts in 27 hours on the 6h March page suggests they still haven't learnt their lesson. The only saving grace is it looks like there was talking in between all these reverts but with 22 of them, that doesn't mean much. I would make this a formal proposal but probably should decide whether to include Wakari07 first. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not getting a better vibe from Wakari07. I counted 7 reverts of Special:Contributions/2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D on Portal:Current events/2018 February 26, they managed to warn them about 3RR on their talk page and in the edit summary during these 7 reverts. That IP also managed to get into one or more reverts wars, including with another IP which they alleged is hounding or a sock and another edit war with Wakari07 on Portal:Current events/2018 January 15. And a bunch different editors at Portal:Current events/2018 January 12. (Nearly all of Wingwraith's revert wars seems to be mostly with Wakari07.) WTF is going on with the portal current event pages? I know they aren't article but still that's no excuse for this mess of revert wars, involving at least I think 3 editors. (It doesn't look like 2600 is Wingwraith. From previous ANIs, it seems they used to edit under Special:Contributions/2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 and various concerns were raised with their edits under that IP too.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have invited User talk:Knowledgekid87 to this discussion as they seem to be someone with some history with the current events portal but isn't I think particularly involved in these insane edit wars. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The current events page is seen by some as the "News" of Wikipedia. I've gnomed there for years, now, and edit wars aren't unheard of. This does not feel like the worst I've seen; though I'd need to go back and count, I believe that honor belongs to a pair of IPs which accused all other editors of the page of being socks, and frequently collaborated. Leaving aside issues of vandalism (which also occurs, most commonly in the form of people including their birthdays), I suspect that some reasons for the problem is that the page is highly visible, often contains contentious issues, has a sense of urgency, and doesn't have a culture of hashing things out at the talk page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• As the person who protected the 5 march page, I think a 1RR restriction for both on the Portal:Current events pages would be a good idea, possibly 1RR per bulleted entry (and perhaps as a general rule there as well not limited to these two). I'm very disappointed that they don't seem to have learned anything since the last one. ansh666 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear I'm asking for the admins here to moderate, not settle the dispute (which would be done between by me, Wakari07 and Icarosaurvus) in order to prevent people like NorthBySouthBaranof from trying to game the system. I'm aware that this is not usually how the dispute resolution process works, but felt compelled to take the dispute here given the arguments from and editing history and conduct of that user. I see that Nil Einne is now involved in the debate on the talkpage so perhaps the admin can do that to facilitate the dispute resolution process. As for the editing restriction, I'll take this as a second strike against me in lieu of the 1RR restriction and may I also suggest an interaction ban between myself and NorthBySouthBaranof if another issue like this arises in the future. Wingwraith (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In what respect is an interaction ban warranted, other than perhaps a one-way ban preventing you from interacting with me? You have presented no evidence that I am doing anything to "game the system," nor have you presented any evidence that I have engaged in any misconduct. To the contrary, ample evidence exists of your unwillingness to understand or comply with basic editing rules such as the WP:3RR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support the proposed 1RR restriction on User:Wingwraith and User:Wakari07. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it should be stated that I am not an administrator; I am just a user. I am a user of some academic experience, but I am a user nonetheless. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: A user who provided a balanced and an impartial third opinion as you did in the 5 March 2018 dispute between myself and Wakari07.

Interaction ban request between User:Wingwraith and NorthBySouthBaranof

In light of the above comment by NorthBySouthBaranof, I hereby request a no-fault two-way interaction ban between myself and that user. That comment illustrates the general point of the comments above which I made against that user: nothing productive will ever come out of any engagement between us. S/he refuses to assume good faith, refuses to compromise and refuses to quit the battlegrounding mentality. I understand that the user would be concerned about the imposition of the ban as it would make it harder for NorthBySouthBaranof to revert my edits on prospective disputes similar to this one, but the WP:IBAN would make up for that as it would preempt the engagement altogether. Overall, both parties would benefit more from the loss of interaction: no more meaningless discussions, edit wars and just time wasting. Wingwraith (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm bemused by this request because the above user doesn't appear to have any understanding of what they have done - that is, extensively and repeatedly edit-warred on current events articles. They now demand an interaction ban on the grounds that... the ANI thread they started is not going the way they hoped it would go? This is not how things work. The only "battlegrounding mentality" in evidence here is the above user's literal dozens of reverts without discussing anything - now that I dared revert them *one single time* they have deigned to raise high dudgeon. I have made a single revert on the page in question, the above user has made dozens; I trust that uninvolved administrators will view this request with the jaundiced eye it deserves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Even you should support the interaction ban as you think that I am a problem editor. Wingwraith (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The normal way to deal with a problem editor, after all, is to simply remove the problem editor -- by topic ban or block -- rather than prohibiting others from interacting with said editor. --Calton | Talk 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make sense: among other problems with it, I'm asking for an interaction ban between myself and NorthBySouthBaranof not an interaction between that user with anybody else. Wingwraith (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Horseshit. Your beginning assumption -- that you're considered a problem editor -- doesn't lead in any logical way to the self-serving conclusion you're trying to force onto it. Your beginning assumption -- that you're considered a problem editor -- leads to simply removing the problem editor -- by topic ban or block -- rather than prohibiting others from interacting with said editor as normal practice. Precedent and basic logic: how do they work? --Calton | Talk 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What the fuck are you even yammering on about? My beginning assumption is that THAT AND ONLY THAT USER is considering me (through only our mutual interactions) to be a problem editor, not that I am considered by anybody else to be a problem editor. Also just as how NorthBySouthBaranof considers me to a be a problem editor, it can also be logically deduced that I (and only I) also consider NorthBySouthBaranof to be a problem editor: hence the request for a two-way interaction ban (between us). Yes I need to use all those parentheses because your comments are actually that stupid. In any case I don't know where this tough guy persona is coming from as you're not an administrator and I've never even met you before so stop it with this white knighting and move the fuck on already or do I need to file an interaction ban request against you too. Wingwraith (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: (re on caps) Are you sure i never called you something like a problem user? My microphone still works, but my ears beep when i read you. Wakari07 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Just dropping a note that this line of discussion right here needs to turn down about two and a half notches. ANI is not an exception to the expectation to remain civil, and if this continues, no one is going raise a stink about someone handing out judicious blocks while the discussion carries right along without you. GMG^talk 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is clearly a case for topic bans or blocks (or possibly just an exhortation to not edit war), not an IBAN. The problem is from both editors editing in a "current events" area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban

User:Wingwraith, NorthBySouthBaranof, and Wakari07 would be prohibited from editing Portal:Current events broadly construed for at least 6 months. This is the second thread involving two of them (here is the other). They obviously cannot effectively collaborate. It'd be better if they turned their attentions elsewhere for a while. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the third thread (here is one). 35.1.238.10 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For at least one of them, enough rope 2601:401:500:5D25:846F:AC6D:8B6:6C71 (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC) (same as IP above)

• Support as proposer. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as opposing party. Wakari07 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose' note that dispute which you are referring to was successfully resolved between myself, Wakar07 and another editor. Wingwraith (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it was, but y'all keep coming back here. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you the famous Mitch? Wakari07 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Also @Wingwraith: Wakari07 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Have no idea what you're asking. 2601:401:500:5D25:846F:AC6D:8B6:6C71 (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean a 2-edits IP coming out of the blue, suddenly proposing a topic ban. Sounds like archangel Michael to me. "U Michigan ?" was accessorily also meant to be somewhat funny. Sorry for that. Wakari07 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose' From my observations of NorthBySouthBaranof and Wingwraith, I would not state they yet deserve a lengthy topic ban. I can also say that Wakari07 is not a net negative for the Current Events Portal; the bulk of their edits are constructive, and they are a rather prolific gnome there. Perhaps some manner of mandatory mediation, at worst, but I do not feel that it is yet time for the big guns, so to speak. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed block of Wingwraith (and possibly Wakari07) for edit warring

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

---

Wingwraith has reverted Wakari07 3 times in 12 hours on the March 13th page: [157] [158] [159]. While this isn't a 3RR violation, it's clearly edit warring. Based on the existing thread, I think a 24-hour block for edit warring is needed. Wakari07 may need a block for edit warring as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, this isn't intended as a "voting" proposal; I think any uninvolved admin can do this on their own volition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No I was reverting in line with WP:BRD, Wakari07 was the one who was breaking the rules because s/he kept restoring the initial changes that I reverted WHILE WE WERE DISCUSSING IT ON THE TALKPAGE. Wingwraith (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who was "in line with WP:BRD"; you're both edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll need administrative clarification for that. At the very least the maximum penalty that I should get is a warning to not make those types of reverts because I don't see how justifiable (AFAIC) reverts (i.e. in line with WP editing policies/guidelines) could constitute edit warring. Wingwraith (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There can't be two ways about it, if I get blocked for 24 hours, then Wakari07 must also be blocked for the same period of time for editing in the same way as well. I'll take this comment of yours as the last warning to not engage in that kind of editing again, but I will want to see a similar commitment by Wakari07 to abide by WP:BRD, which means that s/he will commit to discussing and NOT reinserting any original material of his/hers that I (or anybody else) reverts for the first (and in my case only) time, as the user's violation of that policy really is the heart of the problem. Wingwraith (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support (regretfully) - Based on the edit summaries, this shouldn't just be for 24 hours either (2 or 3 days would be best) considering how much time has passed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 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.

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.

Decred (2nd nomination)

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decred (2nd nomination) - Decred

Could an admin please check if this is article is similar to the last deleted version. I would like to know if it is CSD G4 eligible or not. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The version deleted at AfD was a one liner. There are other previous versions, but they were deleted because they were copyvios. Assumming the current text isn't, it doesn't look like G4 applies. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:48, 16 March 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:Dobranpedia

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.

---

Dobranpedia keeps constantly recreating Leonardo Dobran despite it being deleted twice for being non notable. Dobranpedia has received multiple warnings asking him to stop creating test pages like Category:Use mdy dates from June 2018 but still wouldn't listen. This user is also constantly removing speedy deletion tags from the article he created himself. I am certainly seeing WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE from this user. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

They're also vandalizing random crap too, I reported them at least 20 minutes ago as a VOA. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:36, 16 March 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.

Name of present Dean and photograph

Not an issue for WP:ANI
Name of present Dean of SBH GMC and photograph with his contact details shown on website seems to be incorrect. EMail if of SBH GMC seems to be incorrect. Please verify with them and update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B118:65BE:C0D5:77FC:9641:A7EE (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely WP:NOTHERE

Foolzone23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Prankster of some sort. Kleuske (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a kid. Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

hoaxing at cuba political parties

Not an issue for WP:ANI
in several articles claims that cuba allows other political paries since 1992 since the constition was amended but there is no sources and in that constituion [160]there are aslo several hoax articles about these parties, can some one remove this claims and delete the articles 194.68.94.68 (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit of help with an editor's behavior

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 usually one to bring people to the drama boards, but I fear there's not much else to do in this case. I came across editor Morphenniel (talk · contribs) yesterday, after noticing he/she had blanked a large amount of information from Central Kansas League with an edit summary indicating they had made zero effort to obtain the sources they believe the article needs. From there, I began looking into their edits and found a pattern of disruptive behavior and failure to follow en-wiki guidelines.

In addition to the blanking of information at the article noted above, I'm noticing a pattern of WP:POINT violations: When Morphenniel gets into a dispute with someone, they proceed to dig through other articles edited by their "opponent" and make bad faith edits to them [161] (meaning, they're only doing it as revenge, not as an attempt to improve the article). This editor typically only edits railroad articles, but in two cases over the past few days, has blanked content from articles totally unrelated to railroads just to make a POINT with other editors.

Their responses to polite attempts to discuss these issues on their talk page are met with blanking and comments like "get real" [162], and "unregistered editors should not edit Wikipeida" [163]. More troublingly, they are marking virtually every one of their edits as "minor", which seems to be a way to conceal them from current changes reviewers.

They also note in edit summaries they are reverting vandalism when the edit they're reverting is not vandalism. [164]

Now, they are engaging in a stale edit war on Central Kansas League (with me) over uncontroversial facts (as in a list of baseball teams that were a part of the league). I'm asking that someone please stop this disruption. EDIT: Yes, I did notify them of this discussion on their talk page, which they then blanked [165]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Both of you are at WP:3RR, the talk page is empty and Morphenniel has a point: sources are required. This policy is not negated by pointing out WP:BRD (and subsequently not discussing it). I have no clue where you got the information, but it would be a Good Thing (tm) if you let the readers know whence it came. Kleuske (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Morphenniel's become rather short with IP editors over the last few days. Witness this edit, removing a cleanup tag from EMD FL9: [166]. I don't know if he needs a break or what. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's rather ironic, given that he's such a stickler for sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske, an attempt to engage him on his own talk page was blanked and ignored, so considering his apparent lack of desire to discuss anything I'm not sure why the empty talk page excuses his behavior. I'm not asking you to take sides in a content dispute, I am pointing out a pattern of disruptive behavior. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The unsourced info was added in this edit,[167] by GigglesnortHotel (talk · contribs). That's the user who should be providing sourcing, not necessarily the one who removed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I can source that in 2 minutes myself and will do so. When sources are needed for uncontroversial information, it's generally advisable to either tag it, look for the sources, or otherwise ask that it be sourced. Instead, he persisted in blanking it. The problem with this is that he blanked the info because Gigglesnort hotel edited one of his favorite articles (removing OR and unsourced claims), which apparently he didn't like. WP:POINT isn't a legitimate reason for blanking portions of articles. There are much more collaborative, constructive ways to address personal grievances than engaging in pettiness. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) [168], [169], [170] are most certainly not MINOR edits. That pattern is disturbing, as is their treatment of IP editors exemplified above. They're currently not conforming to policy in these areas. Both users have made 3 reverts on CKL, so there's no 3RR violation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• In terms of remedies, a block might be in order. On the other hand, perhaps a one-way IBAN between Morphenniel and IP editors, along with a strong warning about the minor edits issue, could solve most problems. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Morphenniel clearly has an issue with IP editors. It is very clear that he believes that IP editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has unilaterally decided to enforce his view. How do I know this? Easy: has said so unambiguously. I found this a couple of days ago while looking into something unrelated. The edit summary, "Unregistered editors should not edit Wikipedia" says all you need to know. Most of us probably started as IP editors before registering an account. Accordingly, I support an IBAN as a minimum sanction. DocFergus (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I also note that he has yet to weigh in here, despite my notification on his talk page. I guess he still doesn't feel like discussing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Formal interaction ban 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.

---

As Morphenniel has not dained to interact with this discussion, I'd like to formally propose an interaction ban. It would be to the following conditions.

Morphenniel is hereby subject to a one-way interaction ban with all unregistered editors, for a period of 6 months, appealable in 3 months.

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Being a relatively new editor, I'm not sure if my posting above would be interpreted as a support, so I will specifically add my support here (my apologies if this is not correct procedure). For the avoidance of doubt, Morphenniel has edited here since the original posting was made, one edit of which was to remove the notification of this ANI. There is therefore no valid reason for him not to have responded to the points made. DocFergus (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is correct procedure. Not doing so would make it more difficult to assess consensus. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support That seems like a good idea. I dunno what to do about the other issues, but this is a start. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose uh, I'm normally the big "IP editors are great, stop reverting them and reporting them to AIV or I'll block you for edit warring" guy, but even I can't find anything coming close to requiring an IBAN from reverting IPs (and hell, I'd block before I did that. An IBAN from interacting with IPs is just unworkable.)
  What we have above from what I can tell i.r.t. IPs is: 1) a valid revert of unsourced information. 2) A revert of something that might actually be vandalism if you look at the edit history, because it looks like the IP he was reverting might have been trolling as they copied his previous (correct) edit summary and claimed to be reverting a change from 2016, 3) a view regarding IP editors that is the exact opposite of my own view and a bit snippy, but is far from unique (for the life of me I can't find the this user thinks that registration should be required to edit userbox and I've spent 5 minutes trying, but you can find it on the userpages of many respected editors.)
  This is an overreaction: he's stopped editing after receiving the ANI notice. Whatever disruption there was (I can't make out what was going on because the report was too long and seemed to be throwing the kitchen sink at an editor) has stopped. Let's just close this thread as a whole. Also, Morphenniel, please be nice to IPs going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Bellezzasolo, since you are the proposer, can you please explain what this proposal actually attempts to solve, especially based on my analysis of the diffs? The first two diffs were valid reverts of disruptive IP edits. All this proposal looks to be is trying to get blood from an infrequent editor who hasn't responded to an ANI report. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bellezzasolo: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• From this edit, which is completely UNCIVIL, and their behaviour regarding this ANI case concerned me with future BITE issues. However, the IP issue does look to be very recent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, that's a one-off. We don't IBAN for that, and that opinion is pretty widely held even if (thankfully IMO) it is in the minority. If you look at this contribs, he doesn't edit every day, so it is expected that they wouldn't respond to this thread, and that is actually a good reason to close the thread rather than to sanction them: there is no ongoing disruption, and no evidence has been presented showing that there is a threat of ongoing disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - However, I suspect we'll be back here when he resumes tagging all of his edits as minor, calling things vandalism when they're not, and disrupting WP to prove a point. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony above. 2601:401:500:5D25:394D:D812:E5D3:5D4B (talk) 12:06, 13 March 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.

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:CrisBalboa

I have serious concerns about this editor. I happened upon an article they created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuka_Kuramochi It's a nightmare of bad English and completely useless trivia. Hell, the appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. I made a post on the BLP board but I decided to take a closer look at their contributions and nearly everything they create looks like this. It's all bad English, poorly sourced, fluff extreme pieces. Even worse, I don't see a single edit on their talk page addressing the numerous issues that have been found in their articles.

Please, pick a random article from the list they curate on their user page and tell me if it meets BLP requirements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrisBalboa

Normally I'd try to engage with an editor like this but they have never edited a talk page in their life. Something needs to happen, because this is an absolute mess of low quality articles flooding the wiki, and they show no sign of stopping. --Tarage (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying a statement made by User:Zaereth over at the BLP noticeboard "I would suggest refining your request at ANI to include more examples, especially since Meatsgains has done some clean-up to this one. At ANI, though, you'll want to be very clear that this is more than just some bad grammar, but we have a lot of BLPs without any sourcing, some are just lists without any real info whatsoever, and where there are sources almost none are in English. I have to agree with Collect, that most of these people are not notable outside of Japan."

This is an issue that needs attention as there are several hundred articles here, many of which have awful spelling and grammar and that have extremely questionable notability, and CrisBalboa has not once reacted to any of the numerous talk page comments left about such articles. I need help here. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I've ben quoted here, I guess I should clarify by saying I believe this user has the right intentions and is actually trying to improve the encyclopedia to the best of their ability. The grammar is bad, but a common example of morphology from one language to the next when trying to translate the lexical, derivative, and inflectional meaning from one language into the extreme literal form of the other. (For example, I bought a crossbow once and the assembly instructions said, "Put bar in slat side add screw and turn happy.") However, creating and editing Wikipedia, and especially BLPs, requires some WP:Competence. The user is apparently editing under the assumption that English Wikipedia operates under the same rules as Japanese Wikipedia. They have expressed on their talk page that they'll "try to do better". I'm not sure a block is warranted at this point, but I think this user may need a little guidance and perhaps someone to watch a little more closely. (And if anyone wants to take on the task of cleaning up all these BLPs, it would be appreciated, because I simply don't have the time nor speak Japanese. If any editors or admins here do, then it would be doubly appreciated if you could look.) Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Have just started cleaning them up, Japanese references are permitted as per WP:Reliable sources and being notable in Japan is sufficient for inclusion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Atlantic306. I'd help but the language barrier is a little too far for me to cross. English is made up from many European languages, so those are fairly easy to parse through, but the only Japanese I know is karate, kenjitsu, iaido, sushi, and this old samurai saying, "Rinji news o moshiagemasu! Rinji news o moshiagemasu! Godzilla ga Ginza houmen e mukatte imasu! Daishikyuu hinan shite kudasai! Daishikyuu hinan shite kudasai!" which I'm pretty sure translates as either "Holy Sh--! Run!!!!" or "Heavens to Betsy, it's a bull in a china shop. Put your tail into gear." (Translate that literally into Japanese and see what you get.) Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiNutt's harassment of RolandR

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've just noticed what appears to be a pattern of harassment coming from User:WikiNutt aimed at User:RolandR. This has come in the form of accusations of "political bias" and anti-Semitism, as well as (apparently utterly baseless) claims that RolandR is harassing them. See these diffs: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. I would recommend a firm warning from an administrator to put a stop to this harassment. Hopefully that should encourage WikiNutt to behave in a civil manner in future. If their actions persist beyond that, a more permanent solution may prove necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The first interaction I had with WikiNutt was when I reverted an edit of theirs to Vladimir Lenin, which replaced sourced information with an assertion based on another Wikipedia article and their own interpretation of a photo. The editor's immediate response was to post a bizarre rant on the article's talk page, describing me as "an avid antisemite" - the original, reverted, edit had nothing whatesoever to do with Jews, nor even with the Middle East. Midnightblueowl advised the editor to "refrain from making baseless accusations", to which WikiNutt's response was to accuse Mbo (with whom I do not think I have interacted before) of being my "friend", and to make othger insinuations about Mbo's motives. I deleted this post as a personal attack, and warned Wikinutt. They responded by repeatedly replacing the personal attack, and with repeated claims that I was harassing them. I have no idea what is behind this, as I have never before interacted with WikiNutt, whose main area of editing previously seems to have been around Azerbaijan. The editor should be strongly advised to refrain from personal attacks and baseless accusations; and perhaps this edit summary can be redacted. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

They have not edited since exchange referenced above. I invited them to provide dif's. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean RolandR's userboxes do show a biased position in certain political arenas. I personally view Marxism as very radical. However, what is important is editing, and I find no recent diffs to substantiate WikiNutt's claims, despite edits in the fields of Israel and Communism. I've had this sort of behaviour before, basing their view on userboxes, when I find the politics userboxes are a case of recognizing your biases and overcoming them to achieve NPOV. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiNutt should furnish evidence of the alleged harassment promptly, because when I read the diffs above, the evidence indicates that it is WikiNutt who is harassing RolandR, not the other way around. RolandR is frank about his political opinions, but WikiNutt has failed to make any convincing argument that RolandR's politics have influenced his editing about Lenin's ethnic ancestry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I revised a page involving the founder of the Soviet Union (Vladimir Putin) by clarifying on his ethnic origins with a reputable source that is listed under his fathers wikipedia page, a source that cites his entire family tree. It was immediately reverted by RolandR, and I revised it once again after I took a look at his profile page where he describes himself as an avid anti-Zionist and has engaged in some anti-Semitic behavior, one cited here: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.html . This individual clearly has political biases, which is why I again revised it until another user intervened. User is proud of his behavior and his political bias against Israeli and Jewish sentiment. Ever since that revision on Vladimir Lenin's page, he has continuously been harassing me in my own talk page or on the talk page of Vladimir Lenin by claiming I am personally attacking him and that I am breaking wikipedia rules. I have noted for him to stop harassing me, and he ignored the message once again by claiming I am personally attacking him... I have not responded to this user since, as I believe he is trolling and is hoping to get me off this platform because I have ideological views which differ greatly from his. WikiNutt (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Also for the record, I believe midnightowl has relations with RolandR and they are both acquaintances with one another. This was the user who first came to RolandR's defense and reiterated similar statements that RolandR was making against me, they both have shared views. It is somewhat ironic as well that they are now claiming I am the individual who is harassing RolandR (after I claimed RolandR is harassing me). I already stated for RolandR to stop harassing me (twice) and I log onto wikipedia to see this now - see title of this complaint ... Thanks Moderation team WikiNutt (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean this edit where you maid a claim about Lenin based on a photograph ? Please see WP:OR and WP:SYN. None of us can use our own analysis to make a claim about anyone. We can only state things that we find in reliable sources. This wasn't. this edit was based on a blog, which is also not a reliable source, so it can't be used either. User:RolandR was correct to remove both of those posts.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

An antisemite describes me as a "Judeo-centric Zionist", and WikiNutt cites this as evidence that I am an antisemite! That is as back to front as their claim that I am harrassing them. And I repeat, I have no "relations", nor any acquaintance, with Midnightblueowl. WikiNutt should be reminded to comment on edits, not on editors.

Yes, I hold political views, which I do not attempt to hide. But I try not to let these affect my editing, and I am at a loss to see how they can be perceived as affecting the edit in question. RolandR (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

On a minor point, WikiNutt, Vladimir Putin did not found the Soviet Union, but it is obvious that you misspoke. You have completely failed to show any harassment or disruptive editing by RolandR. To the contrary, your behavior and attempts at explanation here shows that your intense dislike of RolandR's politics has led you to edit disruptively yourself. Your accusations of an anti-Semitic motivation for RolandR's edits regarding Lenin are without evidence and therefore unfounded. You are hereby warned to refrain from this type of unacceptable behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you are actually right. I confused Vladimir Putin for Vladimir Lenin, because they look so alike to me. In regards to "personal attacks" stemming from his political leanings, please take a look at this recent article (and there are many others like it describing this reasoning): http://www.newsweek.com/anti-zionism-just-anti-semitism-another-name-792948 . I have no idea on earth how RolandR interpreted my comments as personal attacks, when he attests to being an anti-Zionist who's been called out and criticized for it in the past. How on earth is that personally offensive? Is there some form of favoritism at play here? Also, this entire ordeal seems very judicial. Is this the wikipedia court? I think my reasoning for the edits were rational, many other sources of information already cite Lenin's ancestral background properly, unlike wikipedia where only a select group of users hold supreme power over the interpretation of information. Lastly, I don't think an individual with such extreme political views should be making editorials for certain sensitive topics. An individual who is proud of a political label that is polarized and regarded as extreme by many, often is ostracized and loses favor in the eye of public opinions. Now I am going to simply ignore all of this, and will no longer reply to this incident. This is a witch hunt at this point to boot me off this platform, because of personal dislike or having a political leaning that differs from others. Very childish ordeal. WikiNutt (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a friend or close acquaintance of RolandR's (either on Wikipedia or in 'real life'), and do not share his Trotskyite, Marxist, or anti-Zionist views. I clearly share some of his interests in the history of Marxism and twentieth-century politics, however, and was the editor responsible for bringing the Vladimir Lenin article to GA and later to FA. This, User:WikiNutt, is the reason that I objected to your addition of unreferenced information about Lenin's ancestry to the Lenin page; it had nothing to do with a desire to support RolandR nor to endorse his anti-Zionist views. I also objected to your very clear harassment of him: let's make this perfectly clear, calling someone an anti-Semite without good reason and then falsely accusing them of harassment is itself harassment. Cullen has now issued you with a warning, so please take heed of that. This isn't a "witch hunt" by any means; it is merely that you are being held to the same standards of behaviour that we expect from every other editor, regardless of political or ideological leanings or geographic location. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetitive legal threats and personal attacks by User:Peacenik162

• Y&R ANZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peacenik162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freikorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following an attempt to have myself blocked from editing, which was rejected by administrators here at ANi (see here) Peacenik162 was temporarily blocked for edit warring and warned against making legal threats by Dlohcierekim. Peacenik162 has not re-engaged in edit warring, but has continued his attempted character assassination, mischaracterization, and throwing around of legal jargon directed against me at Talk:Y&R ANZ. Considering this user has specifically been warned against this type of behaviour, and has previously ignored warnings, and based on their contribution history is undoubtedly a single-puprose account (who has also ignored a suggestion to start editing other articles - see their talk page), I request they be permanently blocked from editing. Here is the diffs of his current attacks: [179]. As well as being a character assassination attempt, as demonstrated by diffs in my response on the page in question, his allegations are also completely inaccurate. Freikorp (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

<<ec>> This user seems to have an external relationship Y&R ANZ. I suggested they see WP:BLP/help and suggested the contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org to request a takedown notice if need be. They call "libelous" sourced content in the article they find objectionable. They have no other interest in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone new can explain things better.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

They are obviously a SPA and most likely an undisclosed paid editor who is editing in violation of the ToU. There is no reason to spend more community time on them. Either indef for ToU violation or NOTHERE. Jbh ^Talk 02:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm actually a close friend of one of the individuals whose name was dragged through the mud by the original article in 2011, and 7 years on is still having to defend themselves because of the links to the original article on the Y&R ANZ Wikipedia page. In the REAL WORLD, legal acton was taken however Wikipedia seems to be above the law. I do not have an undisclosed financial stake in this topic.Peacenik162 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. Jbh ^Talk 04:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If legal action was taken and this was successful, was this covered in reliable secondary sources (such as news papers)? If it was, and you can give us links to these sources, or at least tell us the date and newspapers involved on the article talk page (not here), we may be able to use this coverage to help improve the article. Please only provide these sources, and refrain from making further accusations against other editors or throwing around words like libel. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying we will be bound by any legal action on matters outside wikipedia. Simply that the result of legal action may be covered or influence what we cover if it's seen to affect the reliability of any sources we use. But as said, that result needs to covered, we cannot rely simply on claims of legal action, or generally even on court documents which aren't covered in other reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought I'd give Peacenik162 a few days to reply to the above request before I commented here again. In the meantime I've been searching for evidence of this apparent legal action but haven't been able to find any. If any is found I'd be happy to add it to the article myself. Contray to Peacenik162's repeated claims I do not have a personal vendetta against this company. I have a personal vendetta against IP editors who engage in section blanking referenced content without explanation. Anyway that's not the issue here. The issue is the repeated threats and attacks against me. This hasn't only happened twice, it's been an ongoing issue. Here is a colourful edit summary from Peacenik162 that mentions me by name :[180]. Incidentally can an administrator delete this edit summary on the grounds it is libelous and completely false? Granted that was one of the several attacks that were made against me before this user received their first warning for such behaviour, but since a further attack was made after the warning I'd really appreciate if there was some formal administrative action taken so that a message is sent that this kind of behaviour is not tolerated. As this is an SPA personally I don't see any reason to not permablock, but I'd be satisfied with at least a formal warning left on their talk page. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

List of animals by common name

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals by common name (2nd nomination) - List of animals by common name

Could an admin please check if this article is eligible for CSD G4 or not. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said at the AfD, I don't think this is a speedy candidate regardless of what the deleted edit history is; the page has changed too much since it was created in 2015. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:35, 17 March 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.

Admin Eyes Needed at WP:ITNC

Putin reelected, you say?

-EEng

Things are getting a bit heated at the discussion on the reelection of Putin. I am INVOLVED so my hands are tied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, some admins are going a bit rogue there, it needs them to be reminded that they aren't here to make personal judgements ahead of consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the reelection of Putin even news? If he had not been reelected, THAT would be news. EEng 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It falls under "Recurring events" of ITN items. Even if it is not a surprise of who won, the election still happened and a result still occurs, so we still highlight it on the front page (presuming the article is proper quality). --Masem (t) 00:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a special Recurring Events section for Donald Trump makes an ass of himself in latest tweet? Gosh, we'd have to redesign the whole Main Page to make room! EEng 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No, and actually we keep such POV statements off ITN for precisely that reason. By not trying to judge the case of any specific election due to any perceived fraud or biasing or the like, we remove the system bias to cover all major worldwide elections at ITN. --Masem (t) 02:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Revisions from User:Microsoft-Support should be deleted

Although User:Microsoft-Support is indefinitely blocked, the revisions by them should be WP:REVDEL because they are currently being abused by tech support scammers feigning as actual Microsoft support personnel as evidenced in this clip of a call from the scambaiter Kitboga - Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like all versions where the three contributions from Microsoft-Support (talk · contribs) at Torpig are visible should be revdeleted. Recent edits by Special:Contributions/47.217.97.193 added the following to the article:

This page is used in a scam. They use: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torpig&oldid=781343655

That is very plausible. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Versions of the same text exist in older revisions as well though, inserted by earlier incarnations of the scammer-scumbags. I agree that it would be very good if it could be removed from the history but it would require going through quite a lot of revisions. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Eyeballing it, I think we would have to revdel half the article. --Rschen7754 06:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed a troubled article, and I see several different revisions have been used in scams. I've gone ahead and revdel'd the edits purported to be from Microsoft Support, as we clearly can't be having that. As for the rest of it I think revdel would be OK where it's just scam vandalism and reverts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick response! Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the edits of several IPs involved...Dropper (malware) and Drive-by download were also affected. DMacks (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Koobface is another one. It's been protected for a while but saw a lot of scam vandalism before that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Should be more or less easy to spot from what I've observed so far. Think we should keep tabs on any computer security-related articles for activity from these scoundrels while we're at it. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've rev-del-ed some more revisions - every one that adds or contains the string "Network Hacking Spyware" which is the text read out in the clip linked above. I'm not sure there's anything particular to those revisions that means they couldn't use other, still-visible revisions of the same page, though; they just quote the wiki page to give it credibility and they may just use that revision because they haven't updated their script. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a bot that checks and logs when pages related to these topics are edited heavily by a new user or IP? Having some manner of monitoring system might be for the best if this is a perennial problem. Icarosaurvus (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: writing a bit is the easy but, if you can specify what you mean by "pages related to these topics in a way that usefully finds edits by scammers without enormous mounds of false positives. Ideas would be very welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have categories for these things; Koobface and Torpig are botnets, Dropper is Malware, etc. I believe a bot could be restricted to these, and I believe the wiki already determine which edits are large; edits above ~500 bytes are bolded. This could be checked against the contributions of the user, to see if they have almost exclusively been editing these pages. The problem arises in the avoiding false positives; I did not personally see that as an issue, as I was presuming the bot would take no action other than logging. Please feel more than welcome to dismiss this idea as not useful. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Random thanks from multiple socks

Over the week, I've been receiving random thanks from numerous new users, including Helphimplease (talk · contribs), Heartfeltapology (talk · contribs), Havewemet (talk · contribs), Meetmeinlondon (talk · contribs), Unfortunatehiccup (talk · contribs), Tomcatisout (talk · contribs) and Stuckatairport (talk · contribs). It would be safe to assume that it's the same person behind all of these accounts, as they share identical edit summaries like "phrasing edit" and "comma edit for clarity". They've been stalking and thanking my edits for no reason, and they usually thank my most recent contribs they see when they log in. Stuckatairport literally thanked an edit of mine one minute after they joined. Don't know what they're up to and I could not recall having a dispute with a user that could lead to this in any way. Regardless of their intentions, I feel disturbed and uncomfortable, don't know what to do about it. Hayman30 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And apparently 86.163.134.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is associated with this as well. Hayman30 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

They also seem to thank User:TropicAces. Do you know if you have anything in common with that user which could somehow explain this? Anyway, I'll look into it a bit more, and will probably file a sockpuppet investigation for this, which may help. Fram (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing I could think of. TropicAces appears to edit film articles and I mainly do music articles. Hayman30 (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I have created the SPI which may help in blocking the users and perhaps some rangeblock / user creation block. Fram (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also received numerous random thank you’s from these accounts, and it isn’t limited to film edits (I can provide a list if it’s helpful). I looked into if there was a way to block or mute them but couldn’t find anything. Let me know how I can get in on this and/or help top it. Thanks! TropicAces (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces and Hayman30: most of the logged-in accounts are  Confirmed to Here2help (talk · contribs).  No comment with respect to IP address(es). I blocked him for a week. Let me know if this starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

All socks are blocked, original account User:Here2help blocked for one week. If this would start again, you can reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helphimplease. But let's hope that this ends here. Fram (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, Guess I should have reloaded the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Fram: They're back with Meetmeatmineorwaitanhour (talk · contribs), I've reopened the case. Hayman30 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged. I left a warning on Here2help's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

*Treker - edit warring and resorting to personal attacks

• X-Men in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• *Treker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:*Treker is in the middle of an edit-warring in X-Men in television. And when I posted a notice about it in his talk page, he removed my notice and told me "**** off and die". How is this okay?--TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is laughable, you were the one who started of the rudeness by being absolutely uncooperative and insinuating that I was being purposely misleading, then you refuse to actually check stuff, even try to explain why my points weren't valid and being a giant hypocrite by edit warring yourself without replying to the talkpage discussion you wanted. You're just the typical example of a Wikipedia editor with too much of an ego to admit that you were wrong and little interest in actually enagiving in a discussion to explain your points. The link clearly showed that the series had reviews for more than one and you kept insisting that it didn't and only after I showed the damn link in your face did you try to make it about only Gifted, and of course you still reverted back to a version which said Legion only had reviews for one episode. You also refused to answer any of my questions about how specific it should be and just lulled on with your same motivation that doesn't' make sense. I'm tired of this, please go ahead and do whaterver bureaucratic nonsense you want to the article.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling your edits misleading doesn't give you the right to tell an editor "to **** off and die". How unprofessional of you. And I wasn't attacking you, when I said your edits are misleading edits. It was constructive criticism.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non Admin ) It's not okay. Not only did User:Hotwiki leave a very detailed template message, but he also left a personalized description of what was wrong. User:*Treker simply reverted with a rude message as shown in the link above. That's a personal attack. That's not cool at all.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And as for this edit, Hotwiki is obliged to leave that message on your talk page per ANI rules. Attacking back for something they are obligated to do is also not cool. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, probably the best possible outcome for everyone involved here is for both of you to go discuss the issue amicably on the article talk page, before one of these big mean admins realize you both broke 3RR about an hour ago. GMG^talk 13:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really helpful. For starters, Hotwiki didn't break 3RR, they edited once and reverted three times. Trekker, who actually "did" break 3RR, left a 3RR warning on Hotwiki's talk age though. Second, the advice "go to the talk page and discuss this amicably" is a bit naive when they are already here because of severe PAs, after they tried do discuss it through edit summaries, user talk pages, and the article talk page. They both need to cool down, or perhaps they both need to find another article to edit. But that won't be achieved with bogus warnings about breaking 3RR or with "go to the talk page ane be nice" when they aready are discussing it on the talk page in the first place. Fram (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hotwiki ([181], [182], [183], [184]) and Trekker ([185], [186], [187], [188]) both sit at four. And no, edit summaries to not count as discussion. Neither do boiler plate templating or less that 30 minutes of comments on the talk page before coming to ANI. GMG^talk 13:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The first edit you give by Hotwiki, [189]: in what way is that a revert? Fram (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. GMG^talk 14:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't use my admin tools here since I won't be around today to defend their use. But I suggest another admin enact the following:

• Notes/warnings from an admin to both that they are edit warring and any more will result in a block
• Notes/warnings from an admin to both that they are violating WP:NPA (and a note to *Trekker that he's doing it slightly worse) and any more will result in a block
• Revert the page to the version before this started (which apparently both think is wrong, so no one "wins") - I've gone ahead and done this
• Ban them both from editing the article for a month
• Ban them both from saying anything even slightly critical about the other for a month; all comments are directed at an imaginary 3rd party in an attempt to convince the 3rd party that they are right on the issues, no comments directed at each other, no comments to the 3rd party about the other's competence or motivation
• If needed, someone request a WP:3O on the talk page, and if that doesn't work then follow WP:DR
• Failure to abide by this results in a 1 month block.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo Are you kidding about the template ? That was a very detailed template plus a personal message. Of course it counts.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  14:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. No, it doesn't. GMG^talk 14:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering how on earth we got to the point where saying "Fuck off and die" is acceptable and not worthy of an immediate block. Isa (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't, but neither is edit warring and templating the regulars and then reporting the other side to ANI because they blew their cool, when both of you were in the wrong over the dispute to begin with. GMG^talk 16:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

both of you: Note that I'm uninvolved in this and have no opinion on the behaviour of either editors in the dispute. I was merely commenting on the edit summary. Isa (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant both the original people involved in the dispute. I didn't mean you Isa. Maybe I could have chosen my wording more clearly. GMG^talk 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is no example of civilized society where telling a colleague to "fuck off and die"^[190] is acceptable. Such behaviour should most certainly be avoided. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye, regardless of whether or not a user just blew their cool... It's really completely unacceptable. Yes, we all have tempers, but that is not a constructive way of expressing one's anger in a theoretically scholarly discussion. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• As much as my experience of viewing hot discussions goes, I guess the community here is okay till "fuck off" (oh no, I'm not ok with it, I'm just saying that's the presumable borderline for others here); but you add "and die", and it becomes a blockable personal attack – in other words, if an admin would have viewed the edit without this having come here, the editor would have been blocked first and asked later. Perhaps *Treker already knows that, given his edit summary of "Pathetic" here while blanking an IP's page that was basically asking everyone to "Fuck off and go to hell". Quite similar, isn't it? Lourdes 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please replace the citation needed tag.

On Romani language#Romani in modern times, Please replace the citation needed referring to tag British slang. Verify if this is a reliable. If so, add to the article and replace the citation needed with this source from Google Books. The articles about Romani people look really messy with all the citation needed tags and need sources.

Add this source to the sentence "Urban British slang shows an increasing level of Romani influence." if this source is reliable:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eV9MyzOnBi8C&pg=PA80&dq=british+slang+romani+influence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWsMyduPHZAhXJj1QKHTzWAOgQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=british%20slang%20romani%20influence&f=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.255.179 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Post ACTRIAL spammer thread

Please block this self promoting spammer [191] and add others that need to be blocked here Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:RamanGupta1997 Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/CurtDunlop37 already made 11 mainspace pages of indonesian spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page 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.

---

94.140.52.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again created a bunch of talk pages with no subject article. So much so that I wasn't going to bother individually tagging the pages for deletion. Could an admin clean up this? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up and IP blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 18 March 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:Fahimulkarim3

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.

---

Fahimulkarim3 has remove the speedy deletion template from the article this user created, Fahim Ul Karim after a final warning. I don't know where to report this but I decided to report it at ANI. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the article and blocked the user briefly. I also told him that I'll unblock him immediately if he agrees to follow our rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 18 March 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: 73.93.152.0/22

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.

---

73.93.152.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Lots of disruption is occurring from this IP range, and it has been blocked twice in the past, the latest block which was for one month.

Thanks. 58.138.1.106 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Previous blocks are pretty old. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 19 March 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.

Revoke talk page access for IP 24.100.125.153

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.

---

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

IP continues with its nonsensical edits on talk page even right after being blocked. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 19 March 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:Алексей Густов

Since December, I have sent 22 messages to this editor. 22 messages means a lot of my time and effort trying to raise concerns that this editor is creating multiple articles which are not referenced properly, including BLPs. I have repeatedly pointed out the guidelines on referencing and directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I have had responses to 2 out of my 22 messages, both adding up to that they don't have time for 'blabla'. I have also tried to reach out to them by asking Earl Andrew to join the conversation, which they did, but Alexey continues to edit but not respond to the messages. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours to drive the point home and given a rocket — I told 'em blabla is essential on a collaborative project. Looking at their editing pattern, they may unfortunately miss the block altogether, but I didn't feel I could justify making it longer. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, I think that's the right decision. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Cluster of promotional activities

I crossed a series of edits coming from SOGIN's network promoting SOGIN's CEO and his activities in enigmatography and art. I found at least three SPAs which seems to be related to this activity: Artlatinlover, Escherknot and Johnthomas28. Some local checkusering may be interesting. Apart from SOGIN and Desiata the promotional activity focuses around pptArt, Corporate Art Awards, Hebdomada Aenigmatum , Onomata Kechiasmena and Bojano's "Associazione Culturale Leonardo". --Vituzzu (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruption at Stoneman Douglas shooting

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

---

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three weeks ago there was a discussion in which a side issue was briefly discussed between me and user GreenMeansGo (find "anglophone"). We reached agreement and there was no disagreement, so I went ahead and implemented the agreement by adding one word to the article. There was no objection to that edit then, including by Bus stop who has been involved in the article almost since inception—and there has been no objection to that word for three weeks.

Today, an IP editor who had not been involved in the article removed the word, and I reverted per the existing agreement and de facto consensus. Bus stop apparently agreed with the IP editor and, instead of investigating the archives or starting a new discussion where the situation could be explained to them, they re-reverted. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting&diff=831539799&oldid=831538815 re-reverted] that with further explanation.

At that point Bus stop belatedly started the talk page thread, and I explained the earlier agreement and de facto consensus. I objected to the reopening of an issue that had apparently been settled, but I also explained that I would (of course) defer to a new consensus that was sufficient to supersede the two-editor agreement and de facto consensus. Instead of waiting for that consensus, they reverted yet again after only three hours of TP back-and-forth involving no one but the two of us. Further, they changed not only the word in question but also the text that was the main thrust of the prior discussion. Their reasoning on the talk page: You've got to allow other editors, such as myself, to have input. You are acting as a gatekeeper.

Bus stop's entire rationale appears to be that my undisputed, 3-week-old agreement with GreenMeansGo does not constitute a consensus and therefore a change does not require a new one. I call that wikilawyering. But even if that were true, standard BRD process says the word stays in until there is a consensus to remove it, and I call this last revert disruptive editing resulting from an inability to wait for consensus. I request a short block so that order, and accepted dispute resolution process, can be restored to the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the issue. Modified the title slightly to clarify that you are talking about the crime article, not the school article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing the page regularly from the beginning so this madness has been on my watchlist all day. This is a stupid fight over the word "age" which maybe helps the reader and maybe is so obvious it is not needed. Frankly who cares. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Frankly who cares. Obviously not you, and thanks for your opinion. GreenMeansGo says the word is needed for readers who are not native anglophones. So they care. If they are correct, and I have enough respect for them as an editor to assume they are absent convincing arguments to the contrary, I also care. Anyway, this page is not for resolution of content disputes as I'm sure you know. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If the concern is non-native english speakers it is misguided. Imagine reading the page in any other language you don't know. Most of us would figure out those were names and ages without the word "age" - a word we may or may not understand. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My point was on the behavior - everyone should STOP right now. You are fighting over the most pointless thing you could fight over. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 21 March 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.

Problematic user creating hoax article

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

---

User:Michael Hucker, whose first appearance on this site was marked by a, shall we say, improbable username, has created a blatant hoax article — Thriller One Night Only, purporting the existence of a secret concert with Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney recorded by "James Hucker," sourced to a YouTube video. The entire thing is nonsense, the YouTube video is a fan-made mashup and there can be no question that the user knows this. This is no mistake, it's an intentional attempt to deceive Wikipedia readers and I believe this user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The creation of a hoax article interspersed with more legitimate edits (of varying degrees) is a recipe for future disaster. Blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 21 March 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.

Manipulation of Wikipedia and insertion of false information on the Su-25 page by a group of propagandist editors

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 group of editors consisting of at least User:Ahunt, User:Acroterion, User:MilborneOne and User:Bilcat are manipulating Wikipedia by threatening editors with sanctions[192] and/or removing talk page comments[193] on the Su-25 article who point out the errors in the listed flight characteristics of the Su-25. They defend this by appealing to a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving time travel(!) and claim that this is the official position of the ArbCom. In particular they claim[194][195] that after the crash in July 2014 "Russians" went back in time to "hastly change" the ceiling to 10km in the various sources supporting the 10km figure, such as Wikipedia up until at least 2010[196] which would constitute travelling back 4 years in time, but also in hard-copy reference works such as "Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot" by Alexander Mladenow[197] published in 2013 and constituting travelling back 1 year in time, as well as cockpit video footage from 1995 and uploaded in 2010[198] which constitutes either 4 years or a whole hopping 19 years travelling back in time depending on whether you go by filming or uploading date.

Are these editors correct and is the official Wikipedia stance (as purportedly given by the ArbCom) that not only does time travel exist, but that there is a Russian conspiracy where they have been using time travel to "manipulate sources" to give the 10km flight ceiling? If so, why is there no evidence that Russia has access to time travel technology? If not, why are these editors allowed to go on undisturbed with their campaign of intimidation and manipulation[199] when they are clearly deluded conspiracy theorists with an obvious propaganda goal? (I mean, time travel, seriously?!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B01010100 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

DCNFTDNFT is probably the best response to this. - BilCat (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Not suspicious at all that an editor who has not been active for almost three years suddenly reappears to open this. Meters (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a probing effort connected to a disinformation campaign? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 21 March 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.

• Note: Blocked indefinitely now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem with administrator.

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 everyone, I hope I’m in the right place.

How do I deal with an administrator that is determined to delete something I added to an article without a real reason? In addition, when confronted and cornered, this administrator uses disrespectful language, goes on to threaten me with getting blocked, makes stuff up and more.

I’ve added some stuff to an article in 2013 and it was in the article up until a couple of months ago when in October of 2017 this user decided it should be removed.

The reason the user gave was “poor English”. Since I didn’t think the English was poor, surely not poor enough for it to be illegible, I reverted the edit, saying “Please fix not delete”.

My edit was then reversed and the user wrote: “English Wikipedia. Sentences need to be in comprehensible English.”

Now, everyone can check for themselves, but I didn’t think it was even close to incomprehensible, so I undid the edit. I also added “Deleting info does not make the English comprehensible. If you feel the English is not comprehensible correct it instead of Deleting it.”

Then the reason for it to be removed changed.

The user removed it again and now wrote: “you're right. The entire paragraph should be removed as it was not significant, sourced, nor was there any resolution, evidently”.

I undid the edit, and wrote: “It’s extremely relevant, this is the paragraph that balances out the point, it shouldn’t be one-sided.”

At this point, the user removed it again and wrote: “removal of unsourced content. See talk page rather than edit warring”.

At this point I felt that I satisfied the “not significant” and “nor was there any resolution” part, and only the “sourced” part remained, I added more sourced and put the info back in the article. I wrote, “Sources added”.

As said this was in October of 2017. Things were quiet until last week - March 15 - when this same user again removed the info. This time the user came up with a whole new “reason”! “an affidavit that was not filed is not notable”.

I undid the edit, writing “was filed, follow the links. And it’s notable for balance of views in the article”.

Then a couple of days later this used again deleted the info together with some other stuff, this time the “RVV” - reverting vandalism - was given.

I now figured it was a mistake and just collateral for the other stuff, so I put it back.

I then added even more sources and some info.

This same user now came back, did another delete – not entirely this time – and wrote: “For the fifth time, this is the English Wikipedia and sentences must be typed in comprehensible English”.

At this point I already was quite confident that this is just unfair, coming up with different reasons each time, changing the reason after being shown to be wrong Etc. didn’t seem right.

So I undid the edit and wrote “For the sixth time… its relevant information, if you feel it’s nor written properly you can correct it or ask someone to do it. Do not delete.” I also corrected the few words that were pointed out in the edit as not written properly.

Again the info was deleted together with some other stuff, and the reason was given as “revert vandalism”.

In the meantime this user left a message on my talk page, stating “You're clearly here to push a POV” and pointing to an article I tried adding to Wikipedia 12 years ago - back in 2006, This was my first article on Wikipedia - as “proof” of me pushing my POV.

Then this user went on to threaten me that I will be “blocked” if I undo the edit. And also that my source was not “reliable” because it was a “POV-pushing blog”.

By now I realized this user is an administrator, so of course, I wasn’t going to undo the edit again because I could really get blocked.

So I wrote back – on my page and on the administrator’s page – pointing out that the article cited was my first article years ago, and that I have since made some 1,000 edits on various subjects including creating 16 new pages.

I pointed out why I think the info is important for the “balance” of the article. And that since this user accused me of having an agenda, I responded that the way this user went about dealing with this - for example - changing the reason for deleting, makes it sound like it was the user that was guilty of what the user accused me, namely pushing a POV.

I also added that if the user felt I was unreasonable “please refer this to a third party in administration”.

So this administrator wrote back, using words very disrespectful like “biased edits”, “before you poisoned it with sentences and terms you don't even appear to understand”.

The user also wrote that I refused to discuss the matter on the “talk page”, but as I pointed out before this was about the sources at the time, which I added and didn’t feel “discussing” anything was necessary. Although in hindsight maybe this was a mistake on my hand.

The user also stated now “The article was fine before you arrived and started making biased edits.” And that I tried to change the “consensus version (which had been in place for years)”. And then threatened me again “Consider this your final warning for edit warring”.

I wrote back and pointed out that this was just false. And that the opposite was true. It was this user that deleted stuff that was there for several years. And that by saying this its obvious that “or you didn’t really look into my edits, don’t know the topic or that you are indeed biased”.

The user deleted my edits on the page and didn’t respond.

So this is my question. How do I deal with this?

And is this appropriate behavior by an administrator?

I would think that this is unfair, and this administrator should apologize and change the way he or she acts in the future. Bloger (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This would be Enigmaman and there is a related conversation at Talk:Brit milah#Paragraph, along with a slow-burning edit war in the article between the pair of you. Enigmaman hasn't used his administrator tools in the dispute (eg: by protecting the article or blocking you), and rightly so as we'd come down like a ton of bricks for him using them to further his position in a dispute, so he's talking to you editor-to-editor in this case. The "revert vandalism" was reverting another edit that put in "During the celebratory meal, Joe A. Walz is invited to perform humorous song parodies to entertain the crowd. Such songs include Girls Don't Want Any Foreskin, a parody of Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Want to Have Fun, and You Can't Cut This, a parody of M.C. Hammer's Can't Touch This." - I totally endorse his revert in that instance. I don't think there's much we can do here; you best bet is to either edit one of the other 5 million articles we have here, or request help at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Hope that's of use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I too agree on that revert, it was vandalism. My problem was that he deleted some other info – not vandalism – with it.

And you’re right he didn’t use his administrator tools, but did threaten – twice – to use them.

Bloger (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the not-vandalism part of that edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that was a good idea. What you restored was grammatically worse than what was there. I won't edit war you on it, but I suggest you revert. His next step should be the talk page of the article. --Tarage (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I admit this article is not my area of expertise, but all I see is a difference of opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what I'm not seeing here Bloger? I'm not seeing you use the article's talk page. Ever. You added something, it got reverted. The next step is to get consensus on the talk page. You are in the wrong here, and I highly recommend you stop adding it over and over again because you are well beyond the point of edit warring now and if you don't stop you will be blocked. Also please don't add newlines after every sentence. Paragraphs are your friend. --Tarage (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be right about not using the talk page. As I pointed out, I didn’t feel it was necessary since I felt I satisfied all his “problems” with the edit. Bloger (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we're telling you right here and now that you are wrong. Go to the talk page. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. It's that simple. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone using the talk page much, full stop, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 21 March 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.

Hillbillyholiday and BLP articles again

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

---

As seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive963#Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday, I brought Hillbillyholiday here to ANI last year. A number of editors saw issues with his editing, and the thread was lengthy. Eventually, he was sanctioned. The terms were the following: "Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard." Despite this, Hillbillyholiday violated his editing restriction and was blocked by Seraphimblade. He did not take the block seriously and his response was "Poifect. I'd just booked a week's hols in sunny Angoisse. See you next Friday!" Not long after that, he was blocked by RickinBaltimore for another violation, and his response was the following: "That 1RR thing was bullshit -- a halfwitted hamstringing imposed by a passing mob of clueless drama-whores more concerned with slavish adherence to arbritrary 'rules' than living people. Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both 'restriction' and 'block' per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit." He took a lengthy time off from editing. Until March 13, 2018, he hadn't edited an article since October 27, 2017. Once back, he went right to Reese Witherspoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to remove a section (the "Legal troubles" section) he'd been trying to remove since 2016, and called it "frivolous." He began edit warring with Tobby72 and Starswept over that section. The edit warring only stopped a few days ago, on the 16th. The section is BLP-compliant and is about an incident that Witherspoon received substantial media attention for and apologized for. It affected her career in the sense that it affected her public image, which is why she apologized and the matter was analyzed by sources such as this 2013 "Reese Witherspoon and the Beauty of Asking 'Do You Know Who I Am?'" source from The Atlantic. And yet it is a section that Hillbillyholiday has been determined to remove since 2016. Contrary to Hillbillyholiday's claims, there was never any consensus to remove the section. It is clear that he will keep reverting this material despite his editing restriction, unless an RfC comes to the conclusion that it should remain.

Something needs to be done here. Hillbillyholiday clearly has no intention of adhering to his editing restriction, and could also WP:Game the system by waiting for a 72-hour space in between each revert. He's already stated, "If I see and remove BLP-violating bullshit on my travels and some know-nowt nudnik straight-up reverts me without explanation, then yeah, I will take it to the BLPN. But I am not going to hang around waiting for a response from the peanut gallery if there are serious problems, and I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby." I fail to see how the Reese Witherspoon content is BLP-violating. As stated by editors in the aforementioned ANI, Hillbillyholiday has a tendency to simply remove things he doesn't like and/or recklessly remove important content and act as though the matter is solely a BLP issue. We can see here at the Billy Murray (actor) article and here at the David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet article that Hillbillyholiday is still removing material without trying to WP:Preserve it. We can see here at the Meera Syal article that he thinks London Evening Standard is a tabloid even though tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism (as he's been told before). We can seen here at the Buddy Valastro article that he still think it's acceptable to remove content simply because he thinks it's "too much information." And we can see here at the Daryl Hannah article that he still has an odd prejudice against the reliable Biography.com. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm more sympathetic to these edits than Flyer22 is, but there's clearly an issue here. HBH's tendency to ignore consensus, and to remove excessive amounts of material with vague "BLP"/"tabloid" justification is likely to lead to an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked one year. Violating editing restrictions one day after returning basically says they don't care about community decisions or consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since the central issue's been settled I'll just jump in to say No, Biography.com isn't particularly reliable. Generally speaking it's reliable only for the most hard-to-get-wrong details that you can find somewhere else anyway. I've seen case after case of it containing nonsense and obsolete misinformation. I'm sure people will want to jump in and disagree, and I'm not up for a debate, but I couldn't let that pass without saying something. EEng 21:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  We've had this discussion and no consensus was reached that Biography.com is not RS. No source is 100% perfect, not even Encyclopedia Brittanica. I and the multiple universities, libraries and periodicals listed in the discussion all find it essentially reliable. No secondary source calls it unreliable. That is a matter of personal opinion, which one is entitled to, but it is not supported by outside evidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for giving the OK for me to have an opinion. Connoisseurss of laughable "evidence" (such as, in this case, that B.com is an RS) shouldn't miss Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_237#It's_time_to_talk_about_biography.com_generally. I still haven't decided whether the most desperate arguments were the small-town library recommending it as a source for children, the ALA listing it among "best web sites" in 2002 (!), or the quotes from the many actual RSs of the form According to Biography.com i.e. "If this is wrong, don't blame us". EEng 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  Nice smokescreening. The list included multiple universities. Deliberate omission is deceptive. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  And by the way, probably 95% of what Biography.com is used for here is birth date/place and full name. It's not being used to verify sex-crime accusations or illegitimate children. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  Our esteemed fellow editors will no doubt decide for themselves what's a smokescreen. I'm glad to see you've adopted my recommendation, as found in the linked discussion, to use it, at most, as a provisional source for hard-to-get-wrong, uncontentious stuff such as birthdates etc. EEng 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to him that IAR doesn't mean prance around like a jackass? --Tarage (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be PALAJ. Surely that's obvious. EEng 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If that isn't a typo you lost me. I even tried googling it. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Remind me not to post any more jokes when you're in listening range. ;) EEng 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I like jokes I just don't get it. --Tarage (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't blame yourself. It was a pretty poor one. My timing was off. EEng 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

While edit warring is not excusable, I have to agree with HBH here that the section on Witherspoon is not appropriate encyclopedic material. It may meet the minimum standards of BLP, but that doesn't mean it is still is appropriate for inclusion (it reads as tabloid material, and doesn't establish the context of the incident in how it affected her career). But that said, it's not a clear BLP violation, and thus not exempted from edit warring. --Masem (t) 23:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I don't feel strongly about including that material, but, as others have stated, it was a significant moment in her life that received a lot of media attention. It can be incorporated so that it has better context with regard to the impact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because something gets media attention doesn't mean it is appropriate to include; we want to consider the permanence of the situation. Something like Weinstein and the allegations of misconduct have had a significant effect. As best as I can tell about this arrest, it has had zero impact on Witherspoon's life since 2013. That makes it not appropriate encyclopedic material, even though it meets BLP and sourcing requirements. This is a developing problem across much of WP to update articles with any details without considering how to frame them for the future; it moreso impacts BLPs since not every minor crime needs to be documented in a professional-looking biography. --Masem (t) 00:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, and I didn't state that "just because something gets media attention [... means] it is appropriate to include." I am considering the permanence of the situation. I am not falling prey to WP:Recentism. I've asked myself if this is something a biography would include and I concluded "yes," based not only on the level of media attention this received, but also Witherspoon's good-girl image and how this incident affected that. "Public image," which is an aspect we include in a number of our Wikipedia celebrity articles, can change. It's doesn't always remain something that is still affecting a celebrity's career. Kobe Bryant, for example, is doing really well despite the rape case that received a lot of media attention at the time that it happened. Reliable sources are still criticizing him because of that rape case, as a simple Google search will show. His public image has never been the same, but the rape case is not stalling or otherwise impacting his non-basketball career. It's in the past, and yet we still have a whole section on it (and an article on it) because it was such a significant moment in his life. Yes, the Witherspoon incident doesn't rise to the level of seriousness of the Bryant rape case, but, again, it was substantial enough for her because it completely contrasted her public image and she felt the need to apologize for it...more than once. I already know how you feel about how we cover BLP matters; there was enough disagreement in the aforementioned ANI thread. I still can't agree with you on matters such as this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If an event in 2013 is affecting Witherspoon's public image, it should be really easy to find sources on it, as it is the case with Bryant. It's not. I can't find any that are post-2013. This is the problem. We should only be adding this type of material if later its clear the incident has an effect on the public image. With people like Weinstein, that was clear nearly immediately. It may take years with others. That's the writing for future-proofing editors need to consider, rather than act like a tabloid and follow every incident that happens to a person. Again, this is not material that outright fails BLP, so HBH's still in the wrong for edit warring, but HPH's concerns are going unheard here - there is a problem that this material is just not really appropriate from a common sense point of view. --Masem (t) 01:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment after non-admin close: Masem, I just got through looking at reliable sources speaking of the Witherspoon incident in relation to her good-girl public image. This 2014 The Washington Post source even states that it changed her public image for the better. And, yes, I know that some editors shun The Washington Post. Per what I stated above about how a celebrity's public image can change, I don't believe that "post-2013" sources should be given priority with regard to the 2013 incident. All I'm saying is that I don't think this incident is something a good biography on Witherspoon would neglect to mention. As seen here Encyclopædia Britannica Online doesn't mention it, but that encyclopedia is not like Wikipedia. They don't have "Public image" sections. Anyway, again, it's clear we disagree, but we are not the only ones. And, yeah, we can wait to see if more sources cover this incident in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 21 March 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:NOTHERE spam account

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.

---

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

Fountpix (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to adding unsourced testimonials about Aaron Shuster, who apparently believes that he deserves to be credited on several films. He is spamming Winter's Tale (film) (1, 2, 3) and The Bank Job (1, 2, 3). I'm requesting an uninvolved administrator indefinitely block this account for not being here to build an encyclopedia – only to right great wrongs and promote a non-notable producer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, with the clearest instructions on how to appeal that block I could manage. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 20 March 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:Negin1

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 aforementioned user has consistently engaged in poor conduct from when I reverted his revert of another users edit: [200]. Following this, he reverted my revert, once I reverted it the second time, I named a source for why the spelling 'focussed' is also accepted. However he reverted the edit once more so I warned him about edit warring as well that his reverts were simply being petty: [201]. He then said he would stop with the issue and I reworded the section to remove the mention of the word to prevent him engaging in further edit conflicts. However he then took it to the talk page, and the conversation was completely off topic for the article, so I suggested it would be more suitable over at the talk of the appropriate template, [202]. Following this, he decided to continue the discussion on that talk page, where I explained to him that there were different language templates for English, at which point he made this comment: [203] At which point I warned him about people can take offence at blasphemy, over at his talk page: [204]. Following this, he then swore and wrote in all caps [205] before promptly wiping his talk page: [206] in an attempt to cover his tracks after goading me to take him to ANI. He has also previously been warned about removing sourced sections from certain articles: [207]. I feel that the user is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and is more interested in getting what they prefer published than what is best for the community. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

After I removed the off topic discussion, he decided to continue and reverted my edit: [208]Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Chieftain please do not delete comments by other editors from article talk pages, it is against Wikipedia policy. FYI "Jesus!" is a common exclamation in the English language - it expresses surprise or frustration. Last I heard we were on Wikipedia not in ISIS-held Raqqa. I will refrain from expressing my thoughts over you coming here to complain about an editor using "blasphemy". Negin1 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're comments are off topic, then there is a basis to remove them, you don't seem to have read any policies about conduct on talk pages or read about ANY of the templates, I'm tired of dealing with you. I was relatively light with you as you were a new user but now I'll let the administrators deal with you, you're a waste of my time. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't know what you consider "off-topic" about discussing the wording choice (well, spelling choice) that as a matter of clear disagreement in the editing of the article. The fact that you had put in an alternate wording on a wording disagreement does not mean that someone still raising the question less than half an hour later is off-topic, that your most recent edit was appropriate and permanent. "is more interested in getting what they prefer published than what is best for the community" would seem a good description of your actions in this affair, Chieftan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd just like to echo Mr. Gertler's section above, and offer, hopefully respectfully, a couple quick thoughts. First, hatting off-topic comments is generally, to my mind, a better policy than deletion and less likely to lead to escalation. Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, users have more latitude on their personal pages that they do on the encyclopedia in general. Blanking a user page is perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned, and I know of no policy or rule against it. Second it seems to me that intemperate language is sort of a risk one runs when going to another user's page. I certainly don't excuse personal attacks, but what we have here looks to me like a (somewhat rude, but not out of bounds) expression of frustration. With all due respect to both, I hope this is something we can all put in the rear-view mirror. Then again, I am so often so very wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 20 March 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 review of improper block (Chester Leszek by Swarm)

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 few days ago a new account User:Chester Leszek asked me for some advice, out of the blue. I replied to him, and yesterday I dropped by his talk page to see how he is doing, and I found he has been indef blocked by User:Swarm. His blocking rationale visible at User_talk:Chester_Leszek#Out_of_control_editing did not contain an diffs. I reviewed Chester Leszek's edits and did not see anything warranting an indef block, he has made some reverts (but has not violated or been warned about 3RR) and called another editor vandal, once as far as I could determine. He has received warning about his behavior a day before. Escalating those warnings to an indef seems way too much, too fast. I suggested to Swarm that he should provide diffs justifying indef block, or otherwise shorten or remove the block altogether as it does not seem justified. WP:INDEF "are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." This seems way out of proportion to few reverts and one accusation of vandalism. Swarm has not provided the diffs in his reply there, nor has he changed the block. I think this calls for a review. I don't believe that account's action merit such a heavy handed block, CL should be unblocked, and I think we should caution Swarm to be more friendly to newbies, and also provide diffs for his block rationales. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. This is an editor who, in one of their first edits, removed "ethnic" from "ethnic Poles" on the grounds that "Ethnic Pole is an oxymoron as Poles are ethnic Catholics", thereby confusing ethnicity, nationality andreligious beliefs. He claimed in another edit summary that "Russian was not a language ever spoken in Poland." I think there's a combination of POV-pushing and CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This editor, in an edit summary at Jan T. Gross, said "Gross does not have certifications or credentials to be considered a 'historian'." The fact is that Gross was the Norman B. Tomlinson Professor of War and Society, and Professor of History at Princeton University. Hard to think of better credentials or certifications than that. The editor is either a troll, a liar or a disinformation operative. It appears that they are also a sockpuppet. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a statement by the Dean of the Faculty at Princeton, defending Gross against ongoing attacks by Polish nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser verified as Bulgarian Archer (talk · contribs). Good block. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: I see this is a total non-starter, but still I feel the need to point out that I gave you a detailed response on the talk page, and pointed out that I had cited many policy violations, and simply asked you to point out which of these allegations you needed corroborated with diffs. Rather than follow up with the conversation you were having with a responsive admin, explaining which specific parts of the block rationale you thought were inappropriate, or which allegations you thought needed to be reinforced with diffs, you came running to AN/I. FYI, diffs are not specifically required in a block rationale; I would have been happy to provide you with diffs to substantiate the block rationale had you actually followed up on the conversation we were having, but again, you decided to run to AN/I shouting "admin abuse" rather than participate in a civilized, good faith conversation. The block was explainable, and I was literally in the middle of the process of explaining it to you. It's really not a good look to come running to the drama boards just because you're personally "not seeing it". Swarm ♠ 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. Either on CIR grounds, disruptive editing grounds, or CU grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 20 March 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.

FalkunMalti & Maltese naminig

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.

---

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

FalkunMalti, is changing a lot of Maltese politician names. At first it felt like vandalism or unsourced changes so I warned the user twice. But looking at some of the changes they seem legit. The issue seems to be the Anglicization of Italian/Maltese names. Don't really know what to do. Would this mean a lot of pages would need to be moved or redirected? User refers to birth certificate as source in edit logs, but I don't really know where to look for those. Please advise. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

These name changes were unsourced and it appears they have all been reverted many of them have been reverted. The user did not provide any birth certificates. Articles are named per the policy in WP:AT -- we tend to use the common name even if there is an official name that is different. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrected my statement per the response by Classicwiki: some of Falkun's edits are still there. I can see the argument for reverting all the rest of the name changes since they are all unsourced. If there is disagreement see WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, many of FalkunMalti's name change edits are still live and not reverted. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 16:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to revert the user's edits and hope they will come back with citations the next time. I guess the discussion could be closed. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 16:54, 18 March 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 not here to contribute

I have been trying to get a user to understand the need to provide reliable sources to an article, but no matter what I say he insists on expressing what looks like a clear opinion and refuses to understand the need to be neutral and consider neutral observers. His behaviour appears bordering on childish if I may be so bold to suggest, and I do not believe he is here to contribute to Wikipedia, or at least understands the need. Please observe these edits on his talk page regarding the issue at hand; [209], [210], [211], [212], [213] & [214]. 103.228.188.122 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And after issuing the notice on his page and warning him he just exploded in a fit of uncivil conduct; [215] 103.228.188.122 (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Context: Melbourne City Wrestling. I considered starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/“Mr Juicy” Gino Gambino (second nomitation) to re-confirm Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/“Mr Juicy” Gino Gambino as it was a non-admin closure of an articles for deletion discussion. On further reflection, I thought that would have been rather pointy of me. The AfD was without any doubt correctly closed, and thank you indeed L3X1. I anticipate that LosIngorbernablesDeJapon - a user who commenced editing February 2018 - may either run out of puff and disappear or be WP:INDEF'd even as I write this here. Melbourne City Article Writer aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. IP, it would have helped if you had provided examples to LosIngorbernablesDeJapon of what are acceptable sources for that area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick notice of possible EW

At cheddar man, scroll through the page history, it looks like some IPs, new and established editors are having some sort of revert fest parallel to a discussion on the TP. I am in rush so can't notify the proper editors, sorry. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) edited grammar spelling L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Add Cheddar Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make checking on this a bit easier. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oof! I can't wait for Lactaid to be invented!

-EEng

Here's a bit of irony for you: according to the article, Cheddar Man was lactose intolerant! EEng 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at RFPP. Perhaps I should have requested full protection, but I'm sure an admin can figure it out. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

They all were back then.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, sorry for the lack of detail in my OP. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Guilherme151097

I have repeatedly tried to communicate with this editor, as have others, but in over two years of editing they have ignored all messages. I have been mainly trying to communicate with them about creating unreferenced blps, with just an external link to imdb, which is an unreliable source. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They continue to edit, but not respond to my messages or address the issues. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The editor is continuing to edit but not comment here. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:CC25:E860:95C:22C6:D7BC:EDAE

Addition of unsourced content at WJTV and 20th Century Fox Television. [216] [217] [218] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And they backed off right after you used this as a bludgeon (IP had only been given an unusually strong 3im warning rather than an explanation for reversion like I did, or a lesser automated template). ANI is for serious issues of vandalism, not issues about content. Just revert, warn and escalate from there. ANI isn't for 'things rejected at AIV as unactionable'. Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Moran

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

---

An IP 185.39.64.129 who constantly attacks the article of actor Jackie Moran over the the last few days. He tries to create a fantasy article there instead. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I just saw he also attacked Arthur Cantor and J. Howard Marshall's articles. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see it's been from a couple of different IP ranges. I've given the latest IP a 1-week block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That one is off on its own, but the others seems to be in one tight little range, 185.225.208.0/26, unless I've missed some. I've blocked that for a week too. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 19 March 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.

No response for any of my reliable sources.

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 Admins, I believe that Wikipedia is a knowledge resource and people across the world use it. As wikipedians, it is our job to make sure that the articles in wikipedia reflect the real world instead of the whims and fancies of a few admins. There is this particular admin by the name of Sitush who is behaving in a dictatorial manner. He has completely monopolized the Raju page and not allowing the article to develop. His edits give me a feeling that he has a personal grudge against the Raju community. The below is the link to Raju Talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raju

I provided plenty of sources and Sitush told me I should not do that. I apologized to him on his talk page and condensed those sources and started a new section with fewer sources. Sitush monopolized the Raju page and he replied to me saying he wouldn't even bother reading any of the responses and good luck in getting someone to respond there(Meaning nobody will respond). I provided many reliable sources and even answered the questions raised by him. He didn't respond to any of those and decided to just keep mum and let it all pass unnoticed. This is injustice and I don't want to give up till justice is served to me. I apologize if I went against any of wiki rules and I have to remind you that I am new to wikipedia. I respect wikipedia rules and standards and at the same time I also believe that there are good people here who will involve in a meaningful discussion with me in an unbiased manner instead of pushing their POV and discarding all my sources without any reason.

I will post a few sources here to prove that my sources are reliable.

The below source is by Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma, a famous Telugu Historian and his book has many citations.

https://books.google.com/books?dq=History+of+the+Reddi+Kingdoms+dantuluri&focus=searchwithinvolume&id=diYLAQAAIAAJ&q=Racavaru

The artcile clears says that 'Rajus are Kshatriyas'.

Mr. Sitush makes claims that there is no Kshatriya varna in South and that there is a general consensus about that. To prove him false I have used a source from Kanche Ilaiah who is a Dali Bahujan Writer(Sitush's favourite writers). He clearly mentions Alluri Sitaramaraju's caste as Kshatriya. If there is no Khsatriya varna in South, why would Kanche Ilaiah use Kshatriya reference? https://books.google.com/books?id=DpSHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=kancha+ilaiah+alluri&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqgpWK9_vZAhUlm-AKHWDLD-wQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=kancha%20ilaiah%20alluri&f=false

To prove his point Mr Sitush posted 6 sources and I checked those. I realized most of them contradict what he says. Some of those sources indeed talk about Kshatriyas in South. He told me he wouldn't consider snippet views as a source but unfortunately one of his sources was a snippet view. May be, he thinks he doesn't need to follow wiki laws.

I have even posted several newspaper links about Kshatriya community of Andhra Pradesh. He simply ignored all of them.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/tdp-kshatriyas-stage-protest/article5057411.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/its-a-fight-between-tdp-and-ysrc/article5863141.ece

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2017/feb/26/hectic-lobbying-on-in-tdp-for-mlc-seats-1574904.htm

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2018-02-21/Kshatriyas-elect-new-community-panel/360352

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/caste-factor-holds-key-in-bhimavaram/article5879919.ece

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Kanumuri-Bapiraju-faces-uphill-task-in-Narsapuram/articleshow/33795850.cms

These links prove that Rajus are considered Kshatriyas in the present telugu society. I once again reiterate that I believe Wikipedia is a great project trying to spread information to everyone. It is very important that the admins engage in meaningful discussions and are unbiased without pushing their POV and discarding reliable information. I request you to read my sections in that talk page. My sections are "Remove Rajus claim Kshatriya Status. They are Kshatriyas and there is no need for any claim" and "Rajus are Telugu Kshatriyas". I hope justice will be doneSharkslayer87 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

First, Sitush hasn't even edited the pages in question since your last posts. He isn't ignoring anything. Second, this is the place to request administrator action on behavioral issues, not content disputes. Third, please read WP:TLDR, and try to state your issues in a concise manner, whatever the discussion might be. Posting massive walls of text doesn't help you. Finally, please read our guideline on reliable sources carefully. There's no need for any admin action here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the kind of complaint that can make me regret I deleted the previous special noticeboard for clueless complaints about Sitush in a fit of pique. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 21 March 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.

Harassment by User:Bastun

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.

---

Not once, not twice, not thrice but four times has Bastun repeatedly re-added a message on my talk page that I removed. I warned him on numerous occasions to stop and on numerous occasions told him it was my talk page and I can put what I want on it. Evidence = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.111.226.8&action=history 80.111.226.8 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to be based on an edit war on Yakov Dzhugashvili with both editors fighting over this change back and forth. I note there's no obvious sign in the edit history of that page of the reverts being explained but I may have missed it further back in the history. I'm still getting my feet here again having not been here a long time. User talk:The Banner#Stalking makes grim reading. 92.10.184.187 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope no rationale whatsoever has been provided. He is following me and stalking me. It is quite clearly unsolicited harassment by a man who has some sort of obsession with me.80.111.226.8 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Comment: The main reason the IP wants to remove everything from their talk page and Bastun wants to add it back again isn't the edit-warring warning the IP got, but the message at the top of their talk page that says that they seem to be the same editor as Special:Contributions/80.111.179.32, an IP that was blocked for disruptive editing a few days ago, and that the edits of the IP who started this discussion are a direct continuation of the other IP's edits, edits that seem to be deliberately disruptive, on multiple articles, and at least bordering on vandalism. Or in other words: the person behind the IP who started this discussion is trying to evade scrutiny. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:31, 21 March 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.

Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

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 significant debate now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico regarding a matter of procedure, as far as I can tell the issue is as follows:

• Rusf10 created a bundled AfD containing a number of non-notable local-level politicians. So far, no one has persisted in recommending any of them are kept of their own merits. However several editors (Enos733 and Djflem) insist that one of the articles should not be in the bundle as it is for a county executive, and not a freeholder. I gather that the county executive is of a higher rank. I believe all the politicians are from the same area. The article in question is Thomas A. DeGise.

• There has been much debate, which I am heavily involved in, about whether there is any point having a new separate AfD just for Thomas A. DeGise given the likelihood that it would be deleted, the difficulty of debundling the article, and the fact three people (Myself, SportingFlyer, Bearcat) have already !voted to delete all the articles in the bundle, specifically including this one. I have stated that this fact prevents it's removal by WP:WDAFD, I believe this is accurate.

• I am under the impression that Rusf10 has been cleaning up numerous articles about politicians in a specific area of the USA, and has encountered problems with two prior bundled AfD's, here and here, the latter is still open. These seem to have some bearing on the current matter, and for that reason I am including Alansohn in my notifications about this report. I apologise if there are other involved people which I missed.

• Save perhaps this personal attack comment, the entire affair has been quite civil, I am only bringing this here to get a resolution by an adminstrator, not to get any editor told off as such.

It would be very useful if an administrator could decide what to do about the Thomas A. DeGise article and if applicable, the AfD as a whole. Since otherwise I fear the entire thing will become a trainwreck. It would seem at this point to be unwise for any non-admin to try and "fix" the issue using WP:IAR, which has been suggested as another option. Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The simplest solution would be to separate the article for DeGise out of this Afd. There is broad consensus that a county executive directly elected by the voters to oversee and administer a county of 670,000 people (more than any congressman) should be treated differently from a "mere" county legislator, known in New Jersey as a "freeholder". As Prince of Thieves ably points out, Rusf10 has made other problematic bulk nominations where the articles do not share the requisite common characteristics. Withdrawing DeGise from this bundle addresses that issue. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is, for the record, no consensus that a county executive is automatically more notable than a regular county freeholder — DeGise's includability still depends on exactly the same condition, being sourceable as the subject of enough coverage, and more than just purely local coverage at that, to demonstrate that he would pass WP:NPOL #2 as significantly more notable than most other people at that level of prominence. Being a county executive does not give him a free notability boost that would exempt him from having to have as much sourcing as it would take to keep any of the others, because it's not a role that Wikipedia accepts as handing automatic inclusion rights to every holder of it either. (And the comparison to mayors doesn't wash, either, because mayors aren't even accepted as all being automatically notable just because they were mayors, but still have to pass NPOL #2 as the subject of the same amount of coverage that county freeholders would have to show.)
  Unbundling him from the nomination wouldn't be unreasonable, but no Wikipedia policy requires him to be unbundled from the existing nomination — his grounds for inclusion aren't actually any different from anybody else's in the batch, and if people can show that there actually is a stronger case for including him, then "delete all except DeGise" is a perfectly valid vote option as well. But there's no reason why unbundling is required here, because at the county level of government the includability test isn't any different for executives than it is for the regular freeholders: either way, it requires quite a lot more sourcing than anybody in the batch, including DeGise, is actually showing. It doesn't matter whether they're identical roles or not — they're directly-related roles that don't have different inclusion standards from each other, so they're not different enough to require separation. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Bearcat, you are correct about NPOL. The problem is that every politician at every level of government in every nation at any point in world history also falls under the standard, and your argument would support bundling every politician who has ever lived into this nomination. Even Rusf10 hasn't gotten to that point yet. No one has ever implied that all county executives are inherently notable (though there are in fact different levels of notability at different levels of government, which is why a state legislator is inherently notable and an elected dog catcher isn't). Nor has anyone stated that there is any policy that requires DeGise to be unbundled from the existing nomination. The point is that if anyone has the genuine interests of Wikipedia at heart, and isn't merely trying to load up a pile of articles into one AfD to make a point, it would be the right thing to do. How about if it minimizes disruption, might that be enough? Heck, I might well agree to delete the rest of the articles if the nominator would show the barest evidence of good faith in this matter.
    Unlike your ludicrous strawman, no one suggests that its required. Maybe it's just the right thing to do as a human. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The right thing to do for what reason, if there's no actual divergence in the notability or sourceability standards that the person has to meet to become includable? Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• The whole point of this AN/I post is to get an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to unbundle the article or not. I didn't expect a meta-debate about the relative importance of different levels of government, or commentary about a ludicrous strawman or what the right thing to do as a human is. The whole point is that no-one is required, or even procedurally allowed (without recourse to WP:IAR) to unbundle it, yet several editors want this done. So we ask an admin to deal with it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, in the real world, which Wikipeida seeks to record, a county executive and a county freeholder are very different political offices. No amount of wiki-speak changes that.

So BEFORE editors start citing policy for why DeGise should/should not be deleted, they should understand none of the spare suggestions at Wikipedia:BUNDLE would qualify the inclusion in the nomination. Indeed advice given is to err on the side of caution. The nominator inappropriately took one person with a different political office and bundled him it with a large group with the same political office, thus contaminating the nomination. S/he has done this before and gotten a pass. S/he has been advised on personal talk page to take more consideration before making any nominations. It has been suggested that s/he withdraw DeGise from the nomination under discussion. As as been suggested, a procedural KEEP to withdraw DeGise from the bundle would be appropriate and fittingly respectful of proper procedure. (Thanks, by the way, Prince of Thieves, for your efforts here) Djflem (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that the offices weren't any different. But the notability and sourceability standards that a holder of either office has to pass to qualify for a Wikipedia article are identical — neither office hands its holders an automatic inclusion guarantee just for existing, but rather both offices have to clear WP:NPOL #2 on the same volume and breadth and depth of sourceability as each other. So there's no substantive difference in the issues that AFD would have to consider in the respective deliberations. The question of whether the people clear our notability and sourceability standards or not is what an AFD discussion is about, so dismissing that as wikispeak isn't useful — those things are the main issue at AFD, not side distractions from the main issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to Bearcat. Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says:

Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. Points about the subject articles can and have be made at that discussion page. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself.Djflem (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

They are also all county level politicians from the same area. Which I gather is partly why they were bundled to begin with. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm really sick of this. The objection to bundled nominations is nothing sort of WP:WIKILAWYERING by people who oppose the nominations to begin with. There is a strong resistance to getting rid of low-quality articles about non-notable politicians in New Jersey (which at this point probably has more of these type of articles than any other state). As others have pointed out, no policy was violated by nominating these articles together. WP:BUNDLE simply states "Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination." There no guidelines there about certain types of politicians can't be nominated together. Although different county freeholder and county executive are both county-level politicians and therefore related. I also made it clear in the nomination that DeGise was county executive. There is absolutely nothing wrong procedure with this nomination.

As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [219]. He has been uncivil in the past, but calling me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" goes way too far and IMO he should be blocked.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Look, i'm sorry I didn't see the massive sinkhole full of simmering hostility under this issue, but since I have now noticed it, it could be an idea that Rusf10 and Alansohn come to some mutual arrangement to avoid stamping on each others feet. Maybe if Rusf10 leaves it to someone else to wipe out all the articles on local American politicians or pauses the pace of his crusade for a while, people could calm down! Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said above, I'd support the deletion of most of the articles listed in the AfD. Despite the fact that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here), I do acknowledge that some of the articles I created in my first few months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago were poorly formed and should be deleted.
  The problem is that the underlying pattern of harassment that followed from Rusf10's explicit threat started with (and this is only a subset of the examples I could provide, which have been trimmed for space):
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC - a lawsuit involving a former Teaneck elected official
• This quieted things for a while, but the stalking / harassment continued, ramping up over the past several weeks
  • Adding details about me to the article for Teaneck, New Jersey
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) - following me to an AfD for an article that I had substantially expanded after it had been nominated for deletion
  • this edit - stalking me to an article about Urban enterprise zone to nominally fix an error
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.
• Per Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I had refrained from getting involved in this AfD explicitly because of this pattern of abuse and harassment. I have tried to make it clear that to Rusf10 that the pattern of abuse is not appreciated, but the hint has never been taken, all that follows is further escalations of the abuse. I only responded here because Prince of Thieves had pinged me.
  No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. This is truly fucked up. Anything that can be done to get Rusf10 off my back would make a difference in my ability to edit without enduring the abuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The archived version of the county executive page for DeGise linked at the bottom of current article (and the current live version) has a copyright notice. I'm not sure if there is any copyright exclusion for something like this, but Earwig's copyvio detector comparing our article to the current page says 43.5% confidence, and looking at what is highlighted it's extremely obvious that a lot of text was flat copied with minimal changes. The first version of the page from October 2005 is a direct copy from the website (compared to Aug 2005 version). Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Alansohn loves to play the victim, but the fact is he opposes and attacks me for any nomination that involves New Jersey (whether or not he created the article). He clearly exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over all New Jersey related articles and its not just me, look at the numerous content disputes in his edit history and you will see he always insists on his versions of pages. Just look above, he references Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner), did he write that article? No. In fact, he didn't even edit it until after it was nominated. But, its New Jersey related, so according to him my participation there must have something to do with him. (ie. it's one of "his articles") As I showed in a previous ANI [220] which was basically ignored, he was suggesting that I be banned after I had made only a few nominations. I didn't even know who the hell he was at that point. He routinely opposes nominations just because I made them. For example, here he blasts me for not considering a merge/redirect target and then goes on to propose a completely inappropriate target (its like he didn't even read before posting his response): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Black Sr.. Or how about the fact that created the composite biography article County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson? Alansohn has been extremely uncivil since Day 1, yet he wants to play the victim now. And for the allegation of stalking, from an edit like this [221], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[222]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [223]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rusf10's first interaction ever with me was to dig through my edit history, determine my hometown and decide that I have a conflict of interest on that basis because someone lived in the same place I do at one point. While Rusf10 has perhaps skirted on the edge of WP:OUTING -- I had the content he dug through removed from my history -- the stalking and harassment continue from day one, and sadly Rusf10 doesn't deny or apologize for the stalking. As do the arguments of bad faith; there was no WP:COI at Bill Zanker and the preposterous argument that County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey was created in bad faith is complete and total bullshit; it was created to address concerns raised by Rusf10.
  Please get this guy off my back, which has not stopped since December with the Bill Zanker threat. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually I find this worrying, even the information posted directly above was sufficient for me to obtain Alansohn's contact details and job position (which I won't state here). Needless to say he is clearly well positioned to be very knowledgeable about these articles, whether he created them or not. And no, there isn't any obvious COI, being a member of a different public body close by to the one being edited is hardly a COI, or even vaguely close to one. And writing about the mayor of a nearby town is also not a COI. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all reliably sourced publicly available information that anyone could have easily found, on or off of wikipedia. I simply updated information in an article that was out of date (something alansohn routinely does for every other town in NJ). You can't use your real name as your username and then claim you have some expectation of privacy, so I don't know why we're even talking about that. Three times Alansohn accused me of outing him [224] [225] & [226]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [227] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [228], he alleged [229] that I have a "complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE" and was suggesting that I been topic-banned just because he didn't like the nomination. A nomination that actually resulted in "no consensus", so obviously not everyone else though there was a problem with the nomination. That's right from day 1, Alansohn assumed bad faith and attacked me and now he's here whining that I am harassing him. It is Alansohn's MO to attack me or insist on an extreme "nothing can be deleted" interpretation of WP:AFD, rather than actually provide other policy-based arguments why an article should be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, I respect your privacy -- I don't even know if you're male or female -- and I have not followed you around from article to article to undermine your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what articles to follow you around to.
  On the other hand, it bizarrely means a lot to you that you know who I am (you made the effort to rummage deep into my edit history and claim that makes me in violation of WP:COI), to systematically delete articles related to my place of residence for politicians and rabbis (?!?!?!), to correct edits to articles you've never touched before (merely because I did), to "fix" content about me and to systematically rummage through articles I've created and target them for deletion, even treating efforts to address your concerns as being in bad faith. This is the very definition of WP:Harassment and you refuse to acknowledge that you've persisted for three months with this abuse, despite persistent pleas to just stop. Per WP:HARASS, "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.", but that's not what I'm looking for, I just want this systematic harassment to stop and to be able to edit without worrying that Rusf10 is looking over my shoulder.
  Just acknowledge the stalking, say you're sorry, promise you'll stop, learn your lesson and we can both move on. If you can't or won't, maybe a block is appropriate after all, which would be the saddest way to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I refuse to apologize when 1. I did nothing wrong and 2. to a person accusing me of WP:Harassment who has called me incompetent, "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up", among other things. If you are accusing me of harassment, what the hell do you call your statements? You vigorously attack me (from the beginning), use profanity, and now you're the victim? Do you really think anyone here is that stupid? Rather than me apologize, maybe we can start with an uninvolved admin giving you a final warning about using expletives to describe other editors and you can start following WP:CIVILITY--Rusf10 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been an astonishing amount of controversy regarding New Jersey related topics recently at AfD; both Unscintillating and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) were heavily involved before sanctions. Perhaps ARBCOM needs to examine the issue, as this thread is going nowhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My position is, and perhaps a discussion should start in a larger or different forum, that there should be more clarity on when an editor can WP:Bundle multiple nominations at AfD. In this particular case, I see a difference in scope and duties of a county executive (who has executive authority) than other subjects that have only legislative authority (this is a distinction made in the level of presumption given to strong mayors compared with councilmembers). With many of the bundled nominations I see, there is often one article that should not have been part of the bundle because there is a different circumstance - the bundled nomination of Terry Cady includes a state legislator (which was mentioned in the article at the time of the nomination. The nomination of Thomas Lynch included the information that Lynch Joseph Irwin served as a state legislator in the article at time of deletion. Since the suggestions at WP:BUNDLE state "any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately," I suggested a procedural keep for DeGise. (Note, I recognize that I would probably argue for deletion of DeGise, but the merits of evaluating his notability is distinct from the other freeholders. That said, in this case WP:IAR can apply in this circumstance.) --Enos733 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I, for one, would support the suggestion both at this AfD and in general. Bundling requires more than saying that the articles share a common characteristic, it requires making sure that they don't have features that make them sufficiently different from one another. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just split out the county exec into a separate nom and skip the rest of the drama. Looking at the discussion it seems to divide into "delete all" and a procedural split off of the exec. So just do that. There is way too much fussing over an obvious solution that doesn't prevent anyone from responding as they evidently want to respond in the discussions. Oh, and a round of trout for belaboring this. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As previously stated, a county executive, who has executive authority and elected at-large, is very distinct from other subjects, Freeholders, who have legislative authority and are elected by district. Inclusion in a bundled nomination is ill-conceived. It should be split:Procedural KEEP/WP:IAR?

Despite warnings in Wikipedia:Bundle to be very cautious in doing so, nominator has caused problems before with bundled nominations. One hopes that s/he will be realize that they can cause confusion, and unless a clear-cut case of an example given in the policy, refrain altogether from making them. As suggested by User:Enos733, Wikipedia:Bundle could be made clearer as to avoid depending on "feelings" of nominators, which can be untrustworthy.) As observed by power~enwiki (π, ν) there has an "astonishing amount of controversy" regarding state-related topics recently. I would support the idea that ARBCOM needs to examine the issue.Djflem (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the roles of county executive vs. county freeholder are different in actual on the ground fact — because the Wikipedia inclusion tests for county executive vs. county freeholder are not any different from each other: either way, it's "sourceable to enough media coverage to satisfy NPOL #2". There is nothing about DeGise that AFD needs to evaluate any differently than anybody else in the bundle, no Wikipedia inclusion standard that makes DeGise any more "inherently" notable than anybody else in the bundle, and on and so forth. Is there a difference in what they do? Yes. Is there any difference in what we have to do about and with that difference? No, there isn't — a county executive is not any more "inherently" notable than a county freeholder is, but still has to pass exactly the same "sourceable to nationalized coverage that marks him out as significantly more notable than most other people at his level" test as any of the freeholders do. So arguing to "they have to be separated because they do different things" is an abstraction: they don't have to be separated, because the differences in their roles does not create any difference in the relevant includability standards. It would simply be a waste of time that wouldn't produce a different result, so the principle of WP:SNOW applies — there's no value in reversing a prior action just to put an article through another process that will still produce the same result anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said on the nom page: While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says: Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. So, indeed it does make very much of a difference that the two political positions are not he same. The outcome of the nom does not justify the means by which it is made. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself. Yes, there is a great value in doing things properly on Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong here. There is absolutely no violation of WP:Bundle. The examples you cite are simply examples, nothing more. They do not cover every possible use of WP:BUNDLE. What the articles I nominated have in common is the following: 1. They are all articles about county-level politicians and therefore WP:POLITICIAN applies to all 2. They are all poorly sourced 3. The vast majority (including DeGise) are likely CopyVios. And please elaborate on "went back later to cover his tracks", I do not understand at all. I added the additional article shortly after the nomination was made as per WP:BUNDLE. What are you trying to say?--Rusf10 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is: why did YOU find it necessary to amend the nomination and make a specific point clarifying the distinction that DeGise is the county executive and not a freeholder, as are on the others?Djflem (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That was not an amendment to the nomination, that was part of the original nomination. And why would you oppose me giving an explanation? (as I did there) If you actually arguing for clarity, then that provides it. However, it seems like you're just trying to wikilawyer this.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to the the original nomination the clarification that DeGise is a county executive and not a county freeholders, as are the others on the list.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It really is quite wikilawyery to argue that since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid BUNDLE — the definition of the words "example" and "limited guidance" are that the list is not an exhaustive compilation of all the situations where it applies, but that there can be many other similar examples that have not been specifically named. There's simply no reason why DeGise is an inherently invalid bundling with the other people he's been bundled with — his job title may be different than the others, but the inclusion and sourcing standards that his job title has to meet to get him included in Wikipedia are not any different. It is not irrelevant or "avoiding the subject" to point out that the inclusion rules for "county executive" are the same as the inclusion standards for "county freeholder" — it goes directly to the heart of the matter, because the heart of the matter is whether DeGise can be bundled or not. But again, just because BUNDLE doesn't list an example that corresponds directly to that situation doesn't mean that BUNDLE is inapplicable, because BUNDLE is listing a few representative examples of where it applies and not every situation where it applies. Now, BUNDLE would certainly be violated if somebody tried to sneak Donald Trump into an AFD batch of non-notable county councillors in the hope that people just voted "delete all" without noticing that he was hidden in the batch — but batching a bunch of county councillors together is not a BUNDLE violation just because they don't all have the same job title, because they do all have the same notability standard that has to be passed to qualify for an article. The notability standards are not an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand — they're the crux of whether the matter at hand is a policy violation or not. And it's simply not, because the notability standard that DeGise has to pass is not any different from the notability standard that anybody else in the batch has to pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll strike the mischaracterization,since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid. BUNDLE, for you. A nomination is not a deletion. You can keep repeating that the criteria for bundled nomination is the same as the criteria for deletion, but that won't make it true. You can repeating that all county political offices are the same, but that won't make it true. You can repeating it doesn't make a difference, but that won't make it true.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Without intending to comment on the merits of the bundling, personally I would have suggested that the disputed nomination was just procedually closed. I don't see how the fact that a few people have !voted for delete all affects things. Their !vote to delete the other articles is not affected by the removal of this one article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their !vote to delete this one article is affected, but there's a fair chance it's just going to be closed as a no-consensus for that article anyway. So why continue to waste time on it? A new nomination can be opened for that one article, and they, and everyone else who has already participated in the bundled AFD can be invited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Time for an IBAN?

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

---

Let me play Solomon here and offer the following solution to this festering problem. It is clear that Alansohn and Rusf10 cannot play well together, and this entire thread is evident of a long-standing fued between them which has been festering for quite a while. It's becoming disruptive. Let me propose the following solution which should prevent this from being a future time sink:

• User:Alansohn and User:Rusf10 are hereby banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Along with the standard prohibitions on commenting on each other, contacting each other through user talk pages, the ping function, commenting in the same discussions, etc. this is also to include editing articles which have been created by or substantially edited by the other party, and nominating such articles for deletion (including CSD, PROD, or AFD).

What does everyone think of this? --Jayron32 00:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Whether or not Rusf10 is truly attempting to edit in good faith or is actually engaged in malicious stalking and harassment, it doesn't matter, because obviously no editor should have to feel that they're being harassed on-wiki, and I think there's enough of a pattern to justify Alan's feeling that way. We cannot allow a perceived stalker-victim dynamic to fester and repeatedly boil over like this—intended or not. This is not productive, and this is not healthy. Rusf10's work nominating these articles for deletion is not that important to the project. A firm IBAN is sorely needed and neither user should be objecting at this point. Swarm ♠ 03:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support I've been participating in a number of AfD discussions and the level of vitriol on these discussions is absolutely out of control. I'd like to believe the AfDs were brought in good faith but we're at a point where this cannot continue. This is a good answer. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this might be necessary, but I can only support this if a TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles is also implemented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose'- Such a ban would only validate Alansohn's uncivil behavior and would end up being a defacto ban on me editing any New Jersey related article (since he has edited pretty much all of them). I really do not see this having any negative impact on Alansohn at all (actually I think this is exactly what he wants), but it would punish me. Anyone who thinks Alansohn is a victim should review his edit history. I think the worst I've done is called him a clown and told said that he has a reading comprehension problem. Yes, I admit that was uncivil, but extremely tame compared to profanity and accusations of bad faith that he has directed at me since our first interaction.. He believes he has WP:OWNERSHIP over all New Jersey related articles (because he has edited virtually all of them) and this ban would only reinforce that. A vote of support here is a vote of support for uncivil behavior--Rusf10 (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  This directly addresses his uncivil behavior because now he is no longer able to be uncivil towards you at all, since he is banned from interacting with you. --Jayron32 12:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32:That may be your intention here, but that's not what this actually does. It in effect bans me from editing a large number of articles. Alansohn has edited virtually all articles related to New Jersey including any article about a person who has ever lived in New Jersey (even if only for a small portion of their life) He considers it "his area" of the encyclopedia and does not want other interfering with the article being the way he wants them. As you see from our first interaction, he wanted me banned at once because I dared to nominate one of "his articles" (meaning ones related to New Jersey, not just necessarily ones he edits). Actually, he never even edited the Henry Vaccaro article (which is usually not the case with NJ articles) either before or after the nomination, yet came out of nowhere to attack me. You can call this an IBAN, but the way it is worded is in effect a topic ban of me editing New Jersey articles. Alansohn has on other occasions accused other editor of harassing him. Either you have to believe there is some conspiracy to harass Alansohn or this is simply how he operates in order to get his way. That is he claims WP:OWNERSHIP of article and then attacks anyone who doesn't go along with what he wants. When is called out on his behavior, he then pretends that he has been victimized. But its always the same, it is his aggressive behavior that caused the problem to begin with. Alansohn's behavior is very similar in this ANI and others there also noted his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior [230] The result of that ANI was an mutually-agreed to IBAN that was less broad that what is being proposed here. I am not going to agree to something that would ban me indefinitely from editing a huge category of articles. Please look at these previous ANIs and you will see a clear pattern of his behavior, everything he has accused me of he has accused someone else of before: [231] [232] [233] [234] And there are even more than that, but I can't list everyone of them here. Given his pattern of behavior, I ask you to please reconsider your proposal.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- overkill and excessively one-sided. This would benefit Alansohn exclusively, yet he's been as guilty or more of incivility as Rusf10. All that's necessary is a ban on either editor commenting on or replying to each other in AfDs. The reality is that most of these articles are junk; Rusf10 is improving the encyclopedia by nominating them for deletion and that work should not be impeded. The claims of "stalking" are not really credible. Alansohn has edited so many New Jersey related articles that it's actually impossible to edit anywhere in that area without getting his attention. Well, he does not own New Jersey and if you want to ban Rusf10 from editing New Jersey articles you should suggest that instead of dressing it up as an IBAN. What does need to stop is comments like "monumentally fucked up" and smiilar, from both sides. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds excessively one-sided benefit for Rusf10, which would coincidentally also serve your POV about NJ-related articles.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? How is a two-way IBAN "excessively one-sided"? The only way a two-way IBAN could be construed as one-sided would be when one user is trying to interact and the other isn't. And that should never be a dynamic that's going on unless a user actually needs to be monitored. This interaction is not necessary, period. Swarm ♠ 10:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's one sided in that it effectively bans Rusf10 from any edits in an entire topic area, while imposing no real restrictions on Alansohn (who IMO is responsible for about 70% of the incivility). I believe I said exactly this in my original comment. Was I somehow unclear? Reyk _YO! 10:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10 has also edited widely in the topic area in question, which would mean this proposal would also ban Alansohn from a reasonable number of articles in the "politics of New Jersey" subject area. (And it seems, a number of Pennsylvania related articles). Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow; the ban does not single out any one topic area, nor does it single out the behavior of either user for particular attention. I can't find a single thing I wrote above which your supposed objection even mentions. It's a simple, bilateral interaction ban designed to keep two feuding users from taking up anymore of our time. --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Would this would benefit Rusf10 by allowing him make delete noms, the area of contention, but curtail Alansohn's opportunity to respond? That seems one-sided & unfair. Are we discussing an IBAN or TBAN?Djflem (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither user able to nominate for deletion any articles which the other has created or substantially edited, and the same in reverse. It would also prevent either user from seeking out the other's nominations to comment on specifically. This was already explicit in the language of the ban. Can you explain how the verbage in the proposal makes that unclear? Maybe we can make that more explicit, but I am not sure how... Any ideas? --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. (rarely involved this sort thing) Djflem (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, but here goes. Alansohn has edited a huge number, perhaps most, of the articles on New Jersey. Banning Rusf10 from editing any article Alansohn has previously edited would effectively ban Rusf10 from editing anything to do with New Jersey. This doesn't seem like it should be hard to understand. I really don't know where the breakdown in comprehension is occurring, or how I can say it more simply. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's true of any interaction ban. That's the point of them; it prevents each user from editing those articles which the other works on. Alansohn is also banned from editing whatever articles and topic areas that Rusf10 works in, because the ban is fully bilateral. Your note that Rusf10 is banned from working on articles that Alansohn has is true, but I don't see how that is relevent, because that's how interaction bans usually work; we've done this sort of thing hundreds of times at Wikipedia, and I don't see why there is an objection that this somehow is unbalanced, since it effects both people equally. Alansohn also cannot edit in Rusf10's particular areas of expertise. To only raise objection in one direction seems odd. --Jayron32 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this might severe, but necessary. Consider a temporary TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles to slow this down and let it cool off? Rusf10's has indicated an intention to deplete Wikipedia of NJ-related articles not to his liking. He has on more than one occasion "jumped" on newly-created articles (literally within hours) and brought to AFD before allowing time/opportunity for those who actually contribute content to develop them, thus stifling imput, and raising questions about good faith. He has made several mass noms which have been flawed, leading to confusion at AfD. Whatever the outcome here, I would suggest s/he heed the advice given at Wikipedia:bundle, and make a self-imposed ban and refrain from making them. I would also remind Rusf10 to refrain from making comments along the lines: "what you should know", "you don't like", "because you think". (They are uninformed, unsolicited, uninteresting, and useless opinions which have no place on Wikipedia). I'm curious to see if there will a sudden spike in AFDs for those NJ-related topics of my interest/where I have been a contributor.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• support Seems to me...well lets not rake over old fires, just that I have seen this kind of thing before and it never gets sorted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A less drastic option could be to simply ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD, since this was the primary issue those concerned were fighting over to begin with. Nominating each article separately would still eventually deal with them all. However it has clearly reached the point where Alansohn and Rusf10 have irrevocable differences, which would only continue if they edit the same articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment support ban on bundled nominations. As can be seen from recent history Rusf10's use of bundling at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico) has created confusion and caused contention, which clearly could have avoided. He appears to be adamant in not accepting the invitation/suggestion here to use Wikipedia:IAR to settle the matter (which all involved parties would understand). That is disconcerting. Either he himself or another non-involved party person would be the appropriate person to do it. One hopes he or someone else will step up to the plate and do it.Djflem (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me set this straight here. No one, including yourself has proven that I violated any policy including WP:BUNDLE. You keep citing guidelines that do not exist. There are no specific instructions on which pages can be bundled together. And it's really ironic you telling me to follow WP:IAR now which is the vaguest of all policies. And by the way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, you opposed the nomination because it was bundled and demanded that I unbundle it. [235] I did exactly what you asked. I withdrew the nomination and closed the discussion (because no one else had voted delete). Then when I renominated it separately you opposed it because I renominated it [236] Then you actually had the nerve to tell me that you didn't ask me to unbundle the nominations [237]. My point here, is what you did was just bad-faith WP:WIKILAWYERING--Rusf10 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• SupportFrom above and background there's a lot of harm to the project; seems unresolvable.Djflem (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, without venturing an opinion here as to which user is substantively correct. Their interactions are toxic, and have the effect of poisoning anything around them. There is little benefit to the project of allowing such a situation to continue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose, because as overkill. And someone should remind User:Alansohn that he doesn't own everything New Jersey related and can't do whatever he likes without reference to basic policies like GNG. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Here's the thing. I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related. Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG. In fact, nor do I see any credible behavioral complaints against Alan whatsoever. By all appearances, Alan is a good faith editor in good standing who feels like he's being harassed. He himself acknowledges that some of his early article creations can justifiably be deleted. However nowhere do I see anyone claim that Rusf10 is the only editor capable of assessing such articles. The utter toxicity of their interactions seems enough to convince me that anyone other than Rusf10 would be better suited to perform such a task. However Rusf10, for some bizarre reason, positively refuses to bow out voluntarily. So I ask, what's your alternative solution? Why is this so important, that Rusf must be allowed to continue what a user feels is hounding? The results have been mixed, at best. Clearly many of these interactions are not supported by consensus. So why should we force Alan to continue to interact with Rusf, while he feels he's being harassed? Why should we allow that to continue? I'm honestly asking. Give me one good reason. Just one! Please! Just one! Swarm ♠ 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your response was directed at Calton, but I feel compelled to respond here because because you have grossly mischaracterized alansohn's behavior. Please look at previous ANIs (some of which I linked to above) involving AlanSohn (and not involving me) and you'll see his pattern of uncivil behavior and other editors have described described his behavior as WP:OWN. He attacked me first, so I do not understand why you are defending his behavior. I can't believe you are supporting a ban on the basis of how someone feels, rather than actual facts. And Alansohn is not backing down, I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [238]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [239]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. If he was acting in good faith, why did he restore the comments?--Rusf10 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related.

And neither did I.

Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG.

Weirdly, I didn't say that either. Objecting to things I didn't say is quite a peculiar counter-argument.

I'm going by the things he DOES and HAS DONE; you know, observed behavior. And I'm going to go with the things I've observed rather than the things you haven't. --Calton | Talk 10:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I've been trying to find some way to end Rusf10's harassment during the unfortunate three months following this edit, where Rusf10 tracks down personal data and makes an explicit threat to start deleting articles related to me, and then starts going ahead with the attacks. Articles for mayors from the place where I live have been targeted for deletion and articles for rabbis (?!?!?!) from my place of residence have been targeted, in what appears to be some sort of demented revenge, based solely on the fact that they live where I do. Rusf10 has stalked me to articles I've edited (see here), the article about where I live (here), articles I've tried to rescue from deletion (here) and now is stalking articles that I've created (as in this AfD, which includes several articles I created a dozen years ago). Sure, I've made my share of typos and created some truly bad articles in my first months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago, but I do not need Rusf10 hovering over my every action; there are thousands upon thousands of knowledgeable editors without an axe to grind and trying to get some bizarre pound of flesh from me.
  Despite repeated warnings about WP:HARASS and repeated pleas to apologize and back off, we just get more of the same. I have no interest in who Rusf10 is, no interest in following this person around in retaliation, no interest in nominating articles Rusf10 has created to get some revenge and I have no interest in engaging my stalker-in-chief, even in some of the most recent bad faith nominations.
  My goal here is to find a way to work with this editor, which should start with a good faith effort by Rusf10 to recognize that AfD is being used as a tool of harassment and to head from there to a meaningful change in actions. But as Rusf10 is entirely unapologetic (see here at this ANI discussion) and refuses to back off some of Wikipedia's most blatant pattern of harassment, I see no alternative but an IBAN. I just want this guy off my back once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

More lies, you are not a victim, you have been very aggressive in attacking me. I am not going to repeat everything I said above about your behavior. However, let me respond to a few of the allegations. 1.see here Seriously, you are complaining because I corrected an obvious typo you made? Talk about being petty. 2. As I said above, you do not WP:OWN all NJ-related articles. Your attitude towards [here] only proves that point. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico contains some very poor quality articles. Notability concerns aside, they are WP:COPYVIOs, that is a serious problem. I could have just tagged them as copyvios, but if I did you would just remove the tag, so I thought the AfD was necessary. And furthermore they are clearly share similar characteristics with other articles I have proposed deleting that have absolutely nothing to do with you. And I have repeatedly warned you above civility at AfD, starting with the first time you suggested that I be topic-banned. It is astounding that you demand an apology from me, but don't even show the slightest semblance of guilt here, even going as far to repeatedly restore a personal attack [240] because you think it is justified. But WP:PERSONALATTACKs are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose banning a good faith editor from making a case for deletion on BLP articles, which is what this would amount to. The coverage of non-notable people has BLP implications even if they are public figures in that it raises their profile and could lead to unintentional invasions of privacy, etc. We should not prevent that via an IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Two quick things 1) No one is stopping Rusf10 from making comments on BLPs at AFD discussions in general, or from nominating them. 2) No one is stopping other editors from doing this work either. It's just on the specific interaction between these two users. Have you looked just at the few times they've interacted in this thread alone? The nature of their interaction at Wikipedia is disruptive, not about their work outside that interaction. The proposal makes no mention of their doing any necessary work outside of avoiding each other. Please reconsider, since your objections don't actually seem to have any basis in the proposal itself; if the proposal had made those statements, I think your objection would be quite relevent, but you seem to bring up entirely unrelated things that this ban would not stop either user from doing, nor would it stop any other user at Wikipedia doing. Can you honestly find the interaction between these two users a net gain for Wikipedia? Please see just below and just above at how well they are working together. --Jayron32 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Saying others will do it when others don't isn't very helpful, IMO. The "well it must not be important then" excuse that usually comes up after that isn't very convincing either: there are plenty of users who do very important work in obscure areas where if they left the work wouldn't get done. The wiki doesn't die because of it, but it would be a negative. To your questions: from a cursory review of some of these AfDs, it appears they were good and even the ones that closed as keep were good faith. While an IBAN might not explicitly cover deletion nominations or !voting in AfDs, what would happen is that the !votes or noms would continue, someone would get mad, it would be brought to ANI again as an IBAN violation, someone would say it wasn't, someone else would say it should be, another person would say it wasn't but it was gaming so lets make the IBAN stricter, and we'd have a new sanction on our hands even stricter than this, which would not help. IBANs in anything involving deletion tend not to work well, so my oppose stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose w/ caveat The simple act of nominating non-notable articles is not harassment. It may be seen as such by the editor who is creating all of those non-notable articles but the problem lays in the creation of inappropriate content, not in its removal. I could support a TBAN on bundling the AfD's -I do not think bundling is appropriate for any but the most egregiously inappropriate groups of articles. If bundling is shown to be appropriate for articles created by Alansohn (If there has been mass creation of articles that clearly do not meet inclusion criteria) then I would support a TBAN preventing them from further article creation until their existing articles have been cleaned up. Jbh ^Talk 15:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As often the case, the problem comes when an editor is targeting another editor. Even if many of these edits are legitimate, it's recognised that targeting another editor is often a problem. This doesn't mean it's never acceptable to target another editor, I'm sure many of us do it when we come across a vandal, troll, someone who posts copyvios or shows other behaviour of concern. But nor is it always acceptable especially when the editor targeted is in relatively good standing. Personally, if there was a very high success rate I would consider targeting in a case like this acceptable. But I mean very high, perhaps 85% of higher. I have no idea if this is being met here. And of course, even if the nominations are acceptable, it doesn't mean the commentary is. It's all very well to do good work by finding problem articles and nominating them for deletion. But if you can't resist insulting someone involved, perhaps the creator, in the process this is likely to be a problem. Even if the this person gives as good as they get, this doesn't make the nominators comments acceptable. If anything, it's evidence in support for the need for an iban. It would be unfortunate if the editors good work at nominating problem articles is restricted because of such a thing, but as with many things ultimately some people just aren't suited to work in certain areas because they help create too many problems. Note that I am not saying there is any targeting going on. I've seen it suggested above that it's simply a result of how many articles Alansohn edits in the area. I really have no idea. Partly why I've neither supported or opposed the proposal. I'm simply pointing out that it can be a problem is there is more to it than nominating non notable articles. I.E. You can just look at the situation and say well Rusf10 nominated a bunch of non-notable articles, so that means all they did was okay. From what I can tell, most people supporting the iban are suggesting one or more of these wider problems exist. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This prevents Rus from cleaning up the scores of poor content Alan has introduced to the encyclopedia. From my understanding, the AFDs themselves are not disruptive but the commentary is. Simply restrict the two editors from replying to each others' comments more than once. I would also advice Rus to not be in such a rush to nominate content, even though it is well-meaning. Perhaps expand or create content so Alan is not under the impression you are out to "get him" for poor content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support No one should be stalked and outed as punishment for opposing someone at an AFD. No one should be given a punitive audit for opposing someone at AFD. Most of the people holding local politician positions should have been bundled into a single list rather than deleted as individual articles, and Rus never considers this as an option. --RAN (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure why these false allegations of outing are still being tolerated. Reyk _YO! 15:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

They really shouldn't be, its a violation of WP:AOHA. The community has already rejected these allegations.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 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.

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

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

---

While there may be a "walled garden"-style set of articles about non-notable people from New Jersey, Rusf10's approach to the problem is tendentious and disruptive, and his comments show no sign that he appreciates that his actions are part of the problem. I propose an indef topic ban on deletion nominations on Rusf10 (AfD, PROD, and CSD), appealable after 6 months.

• Support as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- First of all, look at the extreme amount of wikilawyering involved with these AfDs. Whatever happened to editors just saying I think this should be deleted or I think this should be kept and here's why? The editors who want to keep these articles don't want to make valid arguments why the articles should be kept, rather they keep inventing new rules about why the nomination is procedurally wrong. Just look at the Clinton Cemetry nomination discussed above and you'll see what happens when I actually tried to address DJflem's concern, by doing what he asked. Did he drop the procedural objection after I renominated the article alone? No, he didn't, instead he began to argue that the article was kept (because I withdrew) and since it was kept it could not be renominated. These are bad faith objections. Rather then argueing why the article is notable, people would rather wikilawyer their way into gettign the article kept.
  Second, this proposal is a reward for Alansohn's unacceptable behavior. As I have outlined above, this is exactly what he wanted from day 1. Alansohn is generally opposed to deleting almost everything (with a few exceptions). If you're going to punish me and reward Alansohn, you might as well just crown him the king of Wikipedia (a position that he already thinks he has). I promise you he will do the exact same thing to the next person who wants to get some type of community input (because that's really what AfD is, I don't unilaterally delete the article) on New Jersey related topics. Believe it or not I actually had some articles that I created taken to AfD in the past, see [241]. Did I attack the person who nominated it? No. I just defended the article with reasons why I though it should be kept. I actually was annoyed with the person who nominated before the AfD because he was just trying to get rid of it without a discussion, but the AfD itself did not bother me and it really shouldn't bother anyone else if they really believe it is a good article. Because if I'm wrong and I had been wrong with some of my nomination, the community is supposed to come to the right decision.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Nope. But maybe the walled garden should be addressed by dealing with the behavior of the King of New Jersey instead of blocking someone standing in his way. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the above. Swarm ♠ 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- The IBAN above is already too much. And since nobody has mentioned issues with Rusf10's behaviour outside of the New Jersey AfDs it's clear that banning him from all XfD processes is overreach, and purely punitive. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence of problems outside of direct interactions with Alansohn. --Jayron32 14:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh ^Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Or maybe something less drastic such as the below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support My calculation last month was the about 85% of his PRODs were removed, and less than 25% of his AFDs were deleted. He definitely is targeting articles by User:Alansohn and I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn after an argument at AFD. He has made no attempts to improve articles, or create articles, and only deletes articles. When he nominates for deletion, he always says that he looked and found no references, but I can't see how he has time to look when his next nomination is a few minutes later. It took me 4 hours of research to fill in an article that it took him 30 seconds to PROD, then when PROD was denied, take to AFD. No one can possibly do the extensive research needed when 10 deletions are bundled together. Minimally if someone took 15 minutes to research each person in the list, that would take 2.5 hours to look at 10 people. When we have 10 people with the same job, such as mayor, the rule has always been to combine the small biographies into a single list, and he has never considered that option. When mayors or county executives were combined, his knee jerk response was then to nominate that new list for deletion. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn... He did no such thing. That you feel the need to make stuff up doesn't help your case.

--Calton | Talk 03:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I get it, RAN wants retribution because I pointed out that he violated his arbitration ban. I don't know where he got these figures though. According to the AfD tool, over 60% of the articles I nominated get deleted. The statistic on Prods possibly could be right, but that only because RAN and one other user mass deporded the articles (and almost always without explanation). Most of the deproded articles ended up getting deleted at AfD anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. No outing has happened. And it's worth remembering that the last inclusionist wikilawyer with a history of incompetent, trollish commentary at AfDs, and who made the same dishonest accusations of outing, ended up being the one indef banned from XfD. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Too far reaching. There isn't a problem outside interactions with another user. 2601:401:500:5D25:8DD2:E29C:238A:A95 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just an idea
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal to indefinitely topic ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD or nominating for deletion more than 10 articles per day by any method (CSD, AFD, PROD, etc). Additionally Rusf10 may not nominate for deletion any article created by Alansohn, but may comment on any AfD nominated by another. The ban may be appealed after six months. N.B this was really meant to be a possible softening of the proposal by power~enwiki rather than a new proposal all on it's own, please no-one vote on it, I am not an admin, this was just an idea. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose I see no need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose ( Same as above but it bears repeating.) There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Support I have sometimes joined a discussion about Rusf10's overly hasty and ill-informed AfD nominations regarding New Jersey and other topics, and have found him to be dismissive and aggressive towards fellow editors. Moreover, his aggressive nominations for deletion, quite often without evidence of WP:BEFORE or of any particular familiarity with a topic, is disruptive. I know that he has been advised to slow down, to consider tagging pages for notability or sourcing, and to run proper BEFORE checks. But his AfD nominations and style during discussions continue to be disruptive and I can see that a temporary TBAN is warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 6 March 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.

Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey discussion I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [242]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [243]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. For the second time, he has restored the personal attack [244], commenting "restore comments; for someone who uses AfD as the preferred method of personal attack and harassment, should we just delete all of your AfDs and solve the problem? It's time to address these issues, not delete them". He is insistent that his personal attack is justified and both times he has removed unrelated comments made by myself and an other editor for no apparent reason. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war, can someone else please straighten this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Even more incivility by Alansohn

At another AfD for an article I nominated for deletion, Alansohn has launched a personal attack at another editor who voted delete. User:Johnpacklambert pointed out (IMO correctly) that because of the number of county freeholder articles Alansohn has created that he must believe holding the position makes someone notable. Alansohn responded by calling him "an editor who sits on his ass all day long voting delete" and accused him of "destructive deletionism" (the same thing he has accused me and countless others of in the past) [245] I bring this up to show that Alansohn's behavior towards other individuals that he disagrees with is exactly the same as towards me. When he sees a deletion discussion isn't going his way, he gets mad and starts attacking people. When is an admin going to step up to the plate and deal with Alansohn's behavior?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10 has edited this thread dozens of times, trying to WP:BLUDGEON his way through to avoid his pattern of harassment. To provide the context of the tag team work of Rusf10 and Johnpacklambertis this vote, where JPL opines "The extremly subject-specific reviews in minor coin collecting publications do not add up to a pass of the general notability guidelines. Beyond this, Alansohn is being misleading in putting forth this arguement. A review of Alansohn's activities shows he has assumed that merely being elected as a county freeholder in any county in New Jersey, but evidently not to equivalent positions in any other state, makes someone notable on its own. That is why he created this and so many other articles on non-notable people, and so his arguments about Ganz role as a writer amount to a smoke screen to avoid facing the real issue, that this article was created on the assumption that Ganz was notable as a politician and Ganz clearly is not notable as a politician." Surely Rusf10 is OK with this. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of collusion with JPL? And yes, as I said above, I am okay with his post because he makes a valid point. It is that you assume that all county level politicians from New Jersey are notable. I strongly believe that you did not create the article because of Ganz's books (which have no been proven to be notable anyway). Notice that he attacked your argument but didn't call you any names. In contrast, you statement was a clear personal attack which is why another user (not me) removed it from the page [246]. But now I'm sure you're going to accuse me of colluding with that person too.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with chronic WP:HARASS by Rusf10

The reason that we're here in the first place is that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here). Following up on that threat, Rusf10 began a series of AfDs directly targeted at that threat:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC - a lawsuit involving a former Teaneck elected official (delete)

With the overwhelming majority of articles kept, one would have hoped that Rusf10 would have walked away, but has persistently refused, following up with more provocations, stalking and harassment:

• Adding details about me to the article for Teaneck, New Jersey
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) - following me to an AfD for an article that I had substantially expanded after it had been nominated for deletion (article was kept by consensus)
• this edit - deliberately stalking me to an article about Urban enterprise zone to nominally fix an error
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.

By definition "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. Rusf10 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather has focused on abusing process to exact some sick form of revenge for my vote three months ago. What is needed to make this stop once and for all? Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How many times are you going to copy and paste the same exact thing???? This is an exact copy and paste of what you said already above. Do you have any idea how obnoxious the copy and pasting of the same long post over and over again is? I already responded to this exact post above, so I'm not going to do it again. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, isn't copying and pasting the same thing over and over again WP:BLUDGEON? Every thing Alansohn accuses me of doing is exactly what he does.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that your pattern of harassment is the topic of conversation, you've stalked me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy (this edit), less than a half-hour after I've edited the article. Certainly not a sign of trying to de-escalate. I understand that you're angry; you've been trying to exact your revenge, to get your pound of flesh or put in ax in my skull for the past three months since I edited the Bill Zanker AfD. The problem is that this is exactly the pattern of abuse that WP:HARASS describes: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." And it's had its intended effect to make editing as unpleasant as possible.

This was your 37th edit to this ANI thread; no one else is even close. I hadn't edited in this discussion for about a week. Why not step back and allow other editors to take a look and see what they make of what I clearly see as intended as stalking without a 38th, 39th, 40th edit (or more) on your part to further WP:BLUDGEON your way through. Maybe you could try to walk away for 48 hours, or maybe just 24, and I'll do the same. Take the time to edit an article, add a source or perhaps do some copyediting. Maybe even create a brand new article. It's amazing what can be done when you try to build an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:First, please post the definition of harassment here 10 or 15 more times (the bold text really helps too), and you want to talk about WP:BLUDGEONing? Here we have another example of you making things up. You accuse me of following you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy something I actually came across in the delsort. Notice I didn't mention you at all in my vote there [247], so I fail to understand how that constitutes harassment. Or is it that you consider the suggestion of deleting (or in this case I suggested a merge) anything New Jersey-related to be harassment since you WP:OWN the topic? Now let me ask you a question, how did you end up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin L. Crawford (2nd nomination) [248]? It is not an article you had any involvement in nor is it an article about New Jersey. Could you be stalking me? Seriously Alan, are you stalking me? Because that looks like a more credible claim right now than the one you're making. And then again, maybe you're not. Do I care? No. Did you know that accusing others of harassment without proof is also considered harassment? (see WP:AOHA) So I am going to ask you to immediately stop with the allegations of stalking. I willing to step away from this discussion, but not if you continue to make false statements about me or continue with the personal attacks. And by the way I don't know where you came up with your math, by my count this is the 19th time I commented in this discussion, which is almost half of your number (what are you counting minor edits such as spelling corrections or something?)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Close- we already had two ban discussions based on the same identical evidence, and these failed to gain consensus. It's unlikely to be any different this time round. Asking the same thing over and over again in hopes of finally getting the answer you want ca be considered disruptive. I suggest closing this before the conversation gets any nastier. Reyk _YO! 13:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• ARBCOM - this is going nowhere, and I feel the continued disruption at AfD is unacceptable. I've filed for arbitration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Is there any reason we couldn't just ban Rusf10 from nominating articles created by Alansohn for AFD? Nobody seems to have proposed this as a standalone option. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Propose Close my checking with the editor interaction tool suggests there is a stronger case that Alansohn is following Rusf10 around in 2018. I've worked out a plan with Rusf10 that should sort out this mess. Rusf10 will no longer personally nominate Alansohn's creations or pages he is a major contributor to. That will eliminate the alleged harrassment of Alansohn. I've also advised Rusf10 to ignore Alansohn's posts and move on. If he does that, the heat will go way down. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Legacypac, your client is creating problems for your efforts here. Following my edit to the article for Westfield Garden State Plaza, your client Rusf10 stalked me to a talk page discussion about the edit (here) directly related to my edit. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, yet Rusf10 consistently ends up stalking me time after time to the same articles I've edited, this latest incident taking place the day after you making the case that he's backing off. Just get this guy off my goddamn back once and for all. If he refused to do it and you can't get him to stop with the stalking, maybe the community can deal with this persistent harassment. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Alansohn attacking my efforts to defuse a situation you are at likely at least 1/2 responsible for by calling another editor my "client" [249] is at least really rude and borders on a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you're trying to help and I appreciate that. It's Rusf10 who is the problem here. After promising to back off, he jumps right into a discussion related to my edit; there's something fundamentally wrong with someone who simply cannot stop stalking me and my edits. If he can't solve his own problems and take your advice, let the community deal with his harassment. Just get him off my back. That's all I've ever asked for. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated claims another editor is stalking someone deserves a closer look. Since Feb 1 [250] Alansohn edited 10 pages first that Rusf10 later edited. Rusf10 edited 29 pages first that Alansohn later edited - about 3 times more potential stalking by Alansohn. Taking just the month of March [251] we find Rusf10 at 6 pages first and Alansohn only at one page first. Admittedly raw numbers are not the only story, but it's a great start to sanity check a stalking claim. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the pattern I listed from December, where Rusf10 nominated a dozen articles for deletion related to the place I live; as he nominated the articles for deletion and I voted to keep, am I stalking him? Let's look at February's edits, which include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, where Rusf10 nominated an article I created minutes after it was created. He created the AfD of an article I created, but if I respond I'm stalking him?

If you want some good-old-fashioned stalking, there's always this group of edits at Paramus Park, deleting content I created.

Where's the article that Rusf10 created that I voted to delete? Where's the article that Rusf10 has edited where I've reverted an edit or jumped in on a discussion? Where's the restraint Rusf10 has shown, when one of a grand total of three edits made all day today is this one, stalking me to a discussion about an edit I made yesterday.

I'd love to avoid dealing with Rusf10, but it takes two to *NOT* tango. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. This [252] (which Alansohn cites as stalking) looks like a very good edit. No article needs a list of bus routes with detailed descriptions of them any more than it needs a list of every road and highway to the subject. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking because I edited them, created them or have a connection to the place is the very definition of harassment
  Was the Paramus Park a good edit? maybe. Did he follow me to the article? Absolutely! The same way Rusf10 nominated articles related to my place of residence, you'll argue that they should have been deleted. Are you seriously arguing that stalking is OK, as long as you believe that the edit was OK?!?!?!
  For maximally malicious stalking at its worst, there's this edit. This is an article Rusf10 never edited before, where the only purpose was some demented desire to show that he knows who I am, where I live and what I do. That's some fucked-up, stalker style shit.
  Just get this guy off my goddamn back. If you can't control him, let the community deal with his bullshit. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:- When does the personal attacks and profanity stop? You obviously do NOT want to solve this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=825659216] was a good edit to an article that I have edited several times before and is on my watchlist. It's not YOUR article. Try, just try to read WP:OWNERSHIP and understand that you behavior is unacceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at this edit and explain that this is not rather fucked up stalking. The intention was clear; you know who I am, you know where I live and you're going to continue to fuck with me no matter how I try to respond. Explain away this bullshit move. Get off my goddamn back. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please calm down. Everyone knows your name (your choice of username) and anyone paying a little attention knows where you are from generally. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is obvious horrible wp:HARASSMENT. Calming down is not appropriate. Alansohn is quite clearly, obviously a victim of permanent-ban-worthy behavior on part of Rusf10. --Doncram (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Earlier I estimated that Alansohn was responsible for about 70% of the personal attacks in this dispute, which still seems to be true. Now it seems he's also responsible for three quarters of the "following the other guy around" behaviour as well, as shown by Legacypac's interaction analyses. Let me be clear: Alansohn is following Rusf10 around three times as often as the converse, while simultaneously wailing "why can't you leave me aloooonnnnnneeeeee?!??" This is not actually believable. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving towards possible solutions

Legacypac and Reyk: Considering that ArbCom is likely to turn down the arbitration request on the grounds that the community is still handling this issue, and considering that both editors appear to have legitimate grievances about the other, suggesting that this thread be closed seems to me to be an unwarranted choice. Rather, I think someone needs to craft a solution, or a pair of solutions, which will resolve the problems presented here, and which the community can agree to. That's a bit more difficult then usual considering the number of proposals that have already been floated and turned down, but I don't think it's impossible. Perhaps more consideration needs to be given to more precisely tailoring solutions which restrict the behaviors complained of, but which don't otherwise unnecessarily hinder either editor from going about their normal editing. I can't say that I've looked into the specifics of the problems very closely, but I suspect that if there is to be a resolution, it's not likely to be either a symmetrical one or a unilateral one. I also think that it will be very difficult to achieve that goal if both editors continue to snipe at each other in this thread. Perhaps they could agree to a mutual across-the-board cease-fire while the community puts itself to trying to come up with a resolution? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd not looked very deeply into the issue either before I put out a partial solution that would address the claim Rusf10 is targeting Alansohn created pages while not protecting the pages from scrutiny. I've now run the editor interaction tool a few different ways and each date range suggests any stalking is actually coming more from Alansohn, though he is making the most noise about alleged stalking. Crying "stalking" based on someone maybe following him to a single Article in March to make a talk page comment on a publicized RFC seems to be a pretty weak case. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best to stay away from words such as "stalking" and "harassing", just to keep the temperature down enough to allow some unemotional attention to be given to the problem bu uninvolved parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac:Thank you! I almost posted something that probably would not have helped the situation (because how infuriating Alansohn's latest comment is above) but when the edit conflict message came up, I read what you wrote and reconsidered. As you're probably already aware Alansohn purposefully misrepresented our discussion on my talk page in his ArbComm statement. I feel like I am making a good faith effort here, but Alansohn refuses to even admit the slightest responsibility. Without him admitting that he is part of the problem, I don't see this getting resolved without the community imposing some type of ban or block on him (which by his response above should be justified). I encourage you, @Beyond My Ken:, and others to review this carefully before making a proposal. What also needs to be considered is Alansohn's past behavior. This is nothing new and its not just me. Alansohn's block log Doing a search of ANI for Alansohn comes up with 163 hits, I don't have time to look at them all, but here's a few. Some relevant ANI you may want to look at: Claims of stalking and harassment by Alansohn Previous Arbcom on Alansohn's civility [[edit-warring and calling another editor a dick Another discussion about his ownership behavior of New Jersey And there's so much more. Given this has been going on for years and Alansohn's behavior has not changed, he's making the exact same accusations about me that he has made about others in the past. He tries to use the alleged harassment by others as an excuse (and distraction) from his own poor behavior, which to my knowledge he never acknowledged.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10: I think it would be a good idea if both you and Alansohn were to forbear from further commenting in this thread until such time as there are proposals to comment on. You have both had more than sufficient space to present your case, both above, and in the arbitration request. It would be best if you restrained yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly Alansohn has not been blocked since 2009 so that is not a strong argument. BMK and I have many hits in ANi too so that's not a strong argument either. Not posting anymore is a great idea. Many are aware of Alansohn's general mode of operation. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The fundamental question is: should Rusf10 be limited in any way from nominating New Jersey-related articles at AfD? Without a clear consensus on that point, I don't believe a solution can be found. Behavioral remedies (a limit of one comment per AfD; a prohibition on accusations outside of WP:AN/ARBCOM pages) may help, but Alansohn is unlikely to be satisfied without there being a limit, and Rusf10 is unlikely to be satisfied with there being a limit. This makes a "compromise" solution that both parties will be happy with basically impossible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps voluntary restrictions and guidelines? If they refuse to accept, the community votes? Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• The two proposals I am familiar with are an IBAN (which I support) and a TBAN on RUSf10 deleting. I opposed the TBAN because it was too far reaching. However, the more I read this, I think maybe the best solution would be both an IBAN and a TBAN for BOTH editors. Neither editor would be able to interact and neither would be allowed to edit/nominate for deletion New Jersey related articles broadly construed. Both blocks would be indef with appeal after 1 year. That should be sufficient time for both parties to cool down. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• I am copying here some of the comment of arbitrator Opabinia regalis from the arbitration case request, on the theory that not everyone is following that closely, and that the remarks may be helpful in crafting a solution:

  ...The IBAN proposal at ANI may have failed, but that doesn't mean "leave each other the hell alone" isn't the answer here. ... My recommendation is that Rusf10 either focuses his deletion-related efforts on something other than New Jersey, or focuses his New Jersey-related efforts on something other than deletion; and that Alansohn significantly reduces his participation in NJ-related AfDs should others make them. ... Both sides accuse the other of harassment and hounding; if you stop interacting about content, you won't have any reason to interact at all, and the conflict should cease. It would be much better to just agree to do that now than to end up with that result or some variation of it after six weeks of mudslinging. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  OR's full remarks can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't been following the arbitration case. I like Opabinia regalis's comments. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

After collaberating with several uninvolved but experienced editors and taking into consideration wise comments made at the ArbCom case I propose the following solutions. I'd like the indicated editors to respond directly accepting or declining the solution BEFORE there is a big debate. If they accept, an Admin can enact. If they decline, we can hold a vote. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This works well, I think. 2601:401:500:5D25:394D:D812:E5D3:5D4B (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Solution #1

User:Rusf10 in the interest of deescalation will you agree to a WP:TBAN to not directly Tag for notability, PROD or AfD any article created by Alansohn or where Alansohn is a major contributor? Restriction to run 6 months and then expire. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac:I would accept this with the condition that solution #2 also be accepted. Of course, just to clarify, this would not prevent me from creating a list as we discussed on my talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct hence the "directly" wording. I'm hoping you will accept without regard to Proposed Solution #2 which will either be accepted or voted on. We are trying to eliminate reasons to fight here. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, a compromise requires both sides to give something, so I don't think its unreasonable for me to ask.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You can compromise on your own and get reduced drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• How are we defining major contributor here? It could be any edit not marked as minor or done by an semi-automated program, or it could be any article with a certain number of bytes added, or something. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac and Prince of Thieves:This is actually a good question that I'd like to know the answer to. I have take major contributer to mean adding significant content to the article (something beyond adding categories, correcting typos, reformatting, etc.). I don't think any edit not marked as minor would be a good thing to go by because what gets marked as minor is very subjective and someone may make a minor edit and forget to mark it as so (I know I do sometimes).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure at all. These are some of my thoughts; Adding a single sentence to a stub is as major as adding a paragraph to a larger article, where the same single sentence would be trivial. So I can't see it being measurable by edit size. However any restriction relying on subjective assessment of edits could become problematic if challenged later. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If in doubt, just add to your list. If he made one little change over 50 revisions ago no worries. You are not being put under an IBAN but if I were you I'd avoid him everywhere possible as some editors will look for any excuse to try to get you under an IBAN. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Solution #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:Alansohn has made many allegations of harassment against Rusf10 but the evidence suggests that, at least since Jan 1, Alansohn has been following Rusf10 far more (see above). Therefore, in the interest of deescalation will you User:Alansohn agree to a one way WP:IBAN from interacting with Rusf10, subject to the usual WP:BANEX, to run for 6 months and then expire? This would specifically mean no participation in AfDs started by Rusf10, but assuming acceptance of Proposed Solution #1, there will be none involving pages in which Alansohn has a significant interest. Also note if Rusf10 acts in any way like a stalker in the next six months other editors will be all over him. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, while I haven't had time to do a detailed analysis, your repeated suggestion that Alansohn is the one doing most of the wikihounding based on the editor interaction tool, which shows that Alansohn edited 29 pages after Rusf10 compared to 10 the other way around since February 1, looks dubious to me. Looking at the actual diffs, it appears that most of the pages Alansohn edited second were responses to AFDs started by Rusf10. Others were for removing PRODs from articles that Rusf10 had placed, and still others are on pages that Alansohn had edited long before February 1. As you yourself said, raw numbers are not the whole story, and in this case they appear to be quite misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is based on both the interaction data the types of comments made. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the interaction data looks dubious. I don't know what you mean by "types of comments made" and can't see any such reference in the above proposal. I'm thinking at this point that proposal #1 looks more appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass:That would be a valid point you're making about the AfDs, but if you take a closer look, you'll see its not true. Although I didn't mention it n this thread, over at the arbitration request [253] I pointed out that many of those AfDs were for articles that Alansohn did not have involvement with prior to the AfD. Only a small handful were articles he created or had significant involvement with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not so many as you listed there Rusf10, as of the 6 you listed I can see at least two that Alansohn had in fact previously edited. However, I hardly think it surprising that somebody with a keen interest in New Jersey articles would get alarmed when they see somebody AFDing and PRODding a large number of articles in that topic and would start to monitor their contributions. But while I haven't had time to take a close look at your conduct Rusf10, it does appear that a number of editors active in the topic area have been alarmed by the number of articles you have been proposing for deletion, so perhaps that is a concern you should start taking on board? Gatoclass (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: the most direct on point comment is higher up "Earlier I estimated that Alansohn was responsible for about 70% of the personal attacks in this dispute, which still seems to be true. Now it seems he's also responsible for three quarters of the "following the other guy around" behaviour as well, as shown by Legacypac's interaction analyses. Let me be clear: Alansohn is following Rusf10 around three times as often as the converse, while simultaneously wailing "why can't you leave me aloooonnnnnneeeeee?!??" This is not actually believable." User:Reyk 11:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)" Also many editors have expressed concern about Alansohn's "ownership" of NJ pages Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well as I said earlier Legacypac, the charge that Alansohn is "responsible for three quarters" of the wikihounding on the face of it looks dubious. With regard to personal attacks, wikihounding could also be regarded as highly uncivil. As for WP:OWN, I can't speak to that but I do know that Alansohn is a prolific content contributor, particularly to New Jersey-related topics, and that when such an editor starts complaining about wikihounding, they are entitled to due consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Legacypac starts this section off with the rather bizarre claim that "the evidence suggests that, at least since Jan 1, Alansohn has been following Rusf10 far more". Legacypac rather deliberately ignores Rusf10's rather blatant pattern of harassment and abuse of process that took place before his January 1 cutoff and misrepresents the nature of the order of interaction; Rusf10 nominates articles for deletion, I am notified and I edit the article and / or participate at the discussion. Gatoclass has nailed this phenomenon on the head, and the lack of any evidence of stalking or harassment on my part (other than the misrepresented raw data) demonstrates the underlying problem here. Rusf10, as threatened at the Bill Zanker AfD, has routinely and deliberately violated WP:HARASS, following me from article to article. There is not one single article that Rusf10 either created or is the primary editor where I have followed him to edit the article, tag the article or nominate the article for deletion.
  I just participated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bergen_County_Executive, having been notified on my watchlist equivalent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Jersey that the AfD had been added to the list. I had never edited the article before and Rusf10 had created the AfD. I'm sure that one of Rusf10's supporters are going to misrepresent this as an example of stalking.
  Whether the blindness to Rusf10's harassment is deliberate or a mere oversight, the blatant mischaracterization of Rusf10's harassment and abuse of process needs to be addressed. The focus on Rusf10's activities has led to a productive self-censorship of the most problematic activities, a trend that should only continue with the watchful eyes of the community maintaining a focus so as to avoid a relapse to the bad old days of targeted deletions against articles related to where I reside as a malicious means of settling scores (see here). Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:Okay, you're right let's look at something before Jan 1. How about this? [254] [255] [256] [257] This has absolutely absolutely nothing to do with New Jersey and was not something you edited.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There's this edit at the same AfD from Rusf10 - "Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these?" with another outing attempt. As I responded there, I have participated at thousands of AfDs regardless of topic and saw his name on another out-of-process bulk nomination. It's Rusf10 who made -- and followed through -- on the explicit threat to stalk my edits (see here) and the evidence is clear on this pattern of stalking. Per WP:HARASS, "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." and this is exactly what's happening. Above and beyond the abuse of process using AfD to target my edits, this edit to an article where he is adding material about me cannot be a clearer example of Rusf10 stalking my edits and me personally; my only surprise is that he hasn't posted my address or shown up outside my house. Again, there is not one single article that Rusf10 either created or is the primary editor where I have followed him to edit the article, tag the article or nominate the article for deletion. ZERO. There is none and there never will be. I wish Rusf10 would be acknowledging that he has stalked me in the past but is willing to commit to refrain from doing so in the future. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I know, how did I figure out your last name was Sohn? It really took some detective work. Your response here tells everything. You are arrogant and continue to refuse to admit even the slightest amount of fault. As I keep providing more and more evidence that you actually were stalking me (no the other way around), you continue to "copy and paste" the same exact thing. Now, you're claiming that you regularly patrol AfD, but in reality, you've rarely participated in discussion not involving New Jersey.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note: as this remedy as been rejected by Alansohn, it is being voted on below at "Proposed IBAN against User:Alansohn" Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 18 March 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.

Proposed Solution #3

If User:Alansohn still wishes to pursue an IBAN against Rusf10 based on past behavior that they assemble the case and send it to any member(s) of ArbCom they wish (and who agrees to review it) for an opinion. If a member of ArbCom indicates it has merit, the case can be brought to either AN or ArbCom for a discussion and vote by uninvolved members/users. If the reviewing Arb decides no merit, than no case may be lodged. Is this acceptable to both User:Alansohn and User:Rasf10? Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is so much a solution. Nothing really stops Alansohn from doing this now if he so desires.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

He's made the case at ANi and ArbCom but there has not been much support for actioning it. If he accepts this Proposed Solution there remains a good path for him to air his grievances in a structured way. If he rejects, other users might vote to impose this solution or something more narrow on him involuntarily. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible that if a solution is not amicably agreed on by Alansohn, the community would be under more pressure to act than last time because of the comments to that effect made by ArbCom, and the fact this is taking up even more time and energy than before. Obviously the effort put into resolution would also be seen to be of no consequence should that happen. I urge against it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed IBAN against User:Alansohn

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.

---

Throughout this thread User:Alansohn has made many allegations of stalking and harassment against User:Rusf10 without convincing very many editors that these allegations are correct. This is not a symmetrical problem. Even though a TBAN proposal failed above, Rusf10 has agreed at Proposed Solution #1 (A TBAN) to not directly nominate any pages by Alansohn but Alansohn [258] has rejected Proposed Solution #2 and continues to cry harassment against the evidence that shows in the last 2.5 months Alansohn is following Rusf10 around at least 2-3 times as much. I see no evidence of acceptance of any blame for this dispute or willingness to compromise on Alansohn's part. Making repeated false claims against another editor IS harassment and it is NOT ok. Posting those claims in all bold is uncivil. ArbComm wants the community to solve this so it is time for the community to consider: Alansohn is WP:IBAN'd from interacting with User:Rusf10 for six months, subject to WP:BANEX. If this passes, Proposed Solution #1 (a TBAN) would also be formally enacted.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Legacypac has claimed that "the evidence suggests that, at least since Jan 1, Alansohn has been following Rusf10 far more", but rather deliberately ignores Rusf10's blatant pattern of harassment that preceded his arbitrary January 1 cutoff. This misrepresentation ignores the nature of the order of interaction; Rusf10 nominates articles for deletion, I am notified on my watchlist equivalent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Jersey that the AfD had been added to the list and I edit the article and / or participate at the discussion. This fact has been identified by Gatoclass and neither Legacypac nor Rusf10 has rebutted the point or offered any evidence to support the claim. There is not one single article that Rusf10 either created or is the primary editor where I have followed him to edit the article, tag the article or nominate the article for deletion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I have never done so and will never do so, Legacypac is trying to manufacture a solution to a problem that he knows does not exist in order to manipulate process on behalf of Rusf10. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If you accept this IBAN you get a TBAN in your favor where Rusf10 will not be nominating your work. Instead you keep complaining. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose one-way IBAN.Support combined IBAN/PS#1. I'm generally opposed to one-way ibans, but when combined with PS#1, I think that resolves my qualms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In its current form this reads as if it would prevent alansohn from commenting on AfD's of articles he created or sustainably contributed to if Rusf10 nominated them for deletion or comment on the AfD first. Any IBAN would really have to have at least some element of two-way restriction. I think that Proposed Solution #1 is supposed to deal with that, but it could be made clearer that this is in effect a partly two way IBAN. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is partially two way as we are also removing any chance for Rusf10 to target Alansohn pages. - just above Alansohn admits to having a system that leads him to follow Rusf10 to every NJ related page he nominates. A review of those AfDs shows his efforts to oppose Rusf10's noms are hostile and counterproductive and that is the reason for the whole ANi amd ArbComm Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: as it's not quite a one way IBAN, do you still hold the same view? Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for pointing that out - revised opinion above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support combined IBAN/PS#1. I don't see this editorial conflict coming to a stop without some enforced arrangement to stop it, common sense dictates that a reasonable arrangement is to impose as few restrictions as possible to stop the disruption while also allowing those involved to carry on contributing productively. I think this achieves that. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support the combo IBAN/PS#1. It's become very clear where the real problem lies. Reyk _YO! 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support meh on PS1, but they seem to be fine with it, so I don't oppose it. I think Legacypac makes a strong case for a 1 way IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support it is either this or more drama and disruption here or as an ArbCom case. Neither editor has particularly covered themselves in glory here but I am disappointed that we must force a solution on Alansohn after Rusf10 accepted a voluntary restriction to help defuse the situation. That, in addition to the comments by Alansohn in this undying thread make me think that this will prevent the ultimate loss of Alansohn as a contributor to the project should this continue unchecked. Jbh ^Talk 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support this doesn't resolve every issue, but should help solve the current untenable situation. If Alansohn truly believes that there was an outing attempt, and he doesn't want his account to be formally tied to his real-world identity, he should stop repeating the details publicly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I also would support a two-way IBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose; one-way interaction bans are virtually always a bad idea. If two users are being disruptive, do a two-way interaction ban and avoid the possibility of gaming; if one user's being disruptive, ban him from a subject area or impose a block. No comment on which of those is the case here, or if zero users are being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose From what I have seen above, neither editor comes out of this smelling like roses. I'd say a two-way IBAN would make more sense a one way. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  the two way IBAN proposal failed [259] This combines a TBAN on one editor (which he has accepted) and an IBAN on the other (which he has rejected). Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct Legacypac, the original IBAN proposal went beyond the standard IBAN and proposed prohibiting one another from even posting on the same page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unless it's a standard two-way IBAN. Otherwise, just stick to the TBAN. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The TBAN was voted down and so was a two way IBAN. Your preference is for rejected proposals, which is fine, but this vote solves nothing. If you accept this proposal you also get the TBAN. If Rusf10 deserves an IBAN later you or anyone else is free to propose it with evidence. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you just said your proposed TBAN had been accepted, and now you're saying it's been !voted down? You are conflating two different proposals, the TBAN which was !voted down was for a blanket TBAN against Rusf10 initiating AFDs and PRODs, while your latest one, which you said was accepted by Rusf10, was only for a TBAN on initiating such discussions on articles created or substantially contributed to by Alansohn. The latter is the TBAN I said I would support. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not voting on Proposed Solution #1 (a TBAN) but we get it IF this IBAN passes. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I still oppose an IBAN unless it is a standard two-way IBAN. And I think Rusf10 should stop nominating Alansohn's articles for AFD regardless, because if he doesn't, nothing has been resolved and we are likely to find ourselves back here again in no time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: If you want Rusf to stop those nominations in order to prevent this from coming back here, why are you opposing? I supported the two way IBAN, but it's simply not on the table anymore. This is a one way IBAN but it would be part of a two way sanction that would involve the voluntary TBAN you want to see. It's an interaction-TBAN/IBAN instead of an IBAN/IBAN. You could literally look at this as a slightly modified two-way IBAN. Why in the world would you rather have nothing and have to have this discussion all over again "in no time", than simply support a two-way sanction? Swarm ♠ 23:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The way the TBAN is framed makes it very close to being an IBAN anyway. Since it affects articles based on them having been edited by Alansohn rather than by a strict topic. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support combo IBAN and P#1 as per Prince of Thieves & Tony 35.1.249.96 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Rusf10 is willing to voluntarily accept a sanction to deescalate this toxic conflict, with the simple condition that Alan does the same. Why Alan is unwilling to voluntarily accept a deal that attempts to deescalate the situation, I can not understand. But if we have to impose the second half of the deal involuntarily, so be it. It's the last, best shot we have to address this. Best case, this arrangement works, worst case, ARBCOM can see that we tried and were unable to resolve things. But we need to do what we can until it gets to this point. Swarm ♠ 23:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support with PS1. This is a giant time sink, and if someone won't volunteer to work out a solution, they can't complain when one is forced on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely a giant time sink, and spare me the "one-way ibans don't work!' guff. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note: this is explicitly NOT support for Proposal #1. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support with PS1. One way Ibans are always risky by combined with PS1 and considering that while Rusf10 seems to accept they are part of the problem, Alansohn seems to have difficulty accepting that they too are part of the problem, as evidenced by the accusations etc in this thread, I feel this is one of the rare cases when it is justified. As others have said, this is clearly a giant time sink as evidenced by the multiple threads and how long this one has hung around and while we should rush into hasty action, it's clear some action is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• support failing that action against Alansohn for persistent harassment through contantly casting unfounded assertions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I certainly would have preferred that both parties accept voluntary restrictions, but that not being the case, it appears to me that the combination of the voluntary restriction accepted by one party (Proposed Solution #1), and this involuntary restriction on the other party, covers the problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This has been open nearly a week. Would an admin please assess consensus on this. Jbh ^Talk 16:49, 21 March 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.

Proposal #5 - Arbitration Enforcement

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 submit that the reason why the community is unable to agree on a remedy is simply that the community consists of too many editors with differing viewpoints, most of whom agree that some remedy is necessary, but who cannot agree, due to their numbers, on what the remedy should be. On the one hand, the ArbCom is able to fashion remedies because it consists of a finite number of functionaries rather than a crowd. On the other hand, the ArbCom is about to decline this case, and this is anyway not the sort of case where fact-finding is needed, only a remedy. So, there is an available way to draft a remedy that isn't the community, which isn't working, and isn't the ArbCom, which is the last resort. That is Arbitration Enforcement. Arbitration Enforcement is available under either the American politics case, because nearly all of the articles are about American politicians (and New Jersey is still one of the 50 United States, as it always has been), or the biographies of living persons case, because nearly all of the articles are about living politicians. I suggest that this thread be closed and that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement be allowed to fashion remedies that will deal with editors who do not like each other and are disrupting Wikipedia processes on that account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I accidentally archived this. Sorry. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
• Oppose nothing is stopping uninvolved admins from participating here or using Discretionary Sanctions without a full discussion at WP:AE. Not all the pages involved here are BLPs (Lizette Parker) or politicians (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil), though a prohibition involving both would probably be thorough enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rus10 agreed to Proposal #1, a topic ban. The community is !voting on enforcing an interaction ban on Alansohn. If that fails, maybe then WP:AE. 2601:401:500:5D25:2C6F:923C:D133:1B7D (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Since the above proposal appears to be gaining ground, I am not formally withdrawing this proposal but will be satisfied if something is done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• There's not some different class of super-admins at AE. Nothing's preventing any of us here from attempting to impose discretionary sanctions, as you suggest. It simply is not the easy fix you think it is. A unilateral AE action isn't going to stick. Especially anything that's already been shot down by the community. Any AE action is still going to require a full rehashing of this discussion and a consensus to back it. I don't see that process being any easier at AE, and it might be harder to make the procedural case that this is covered by previous ARBCOM cases. Let's try to resolve this here. Swarm ♠ 22:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as of this being posted the sanction are passing by a good margin. ARBCOMM wants us to fix it and shuffling it off to a third venue is not a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 18 March 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.

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.

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany‎‎

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.

---

Today, there were 81 edits made to this article -- far too many for me to follow who's edit warring with whom (if any), or whether there is group/meatpuppet editing going on. If Poland falls under ARBEE, might it not be advisable to put a DS warning and editnotice on the article, and perhaps drop notices on all of today's participants' talk pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is some potential socking activity, a semi-protection may be in order. I don't think full protection is needed, while there is lot of editing and some back and forth, there is no edit warring, at least, nothing simple. Hopefully this won't end up at arbitration, through some people need to start making middle ground soon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If only more pages had the problem of a large number of editors. At a quick glance I don't see a need for the DS warning, though if the situation degrades it's clearly an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A large number of edits could be a good thing, but not so much when it appears out of nowhere. This was also an article that recently (easily) survived an AfD, so I'm afraid that there may be editors who are operating on the basis of "if we can't get it deleted, maybe we can gut it, or skew it in our favor." The Poland in WWII subject area has recently become a battlefield because of this, which has passions stirred on both sides Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Good catch BMK. I wasn't even aware of the recent controversy and definitely wouldn't have put the two together.

The article has one of the worst leads I've ever seen. Explicitly setting up a lead to say "this topic doesn't exist; please ignore the rest of this article" is pretty atrocious. The article body cites what appears to be a professional historian's range of estimates as between 7,000 and 1,000,000 (or between 0.025% and 2.857% of the total antebellum population, including Jews who presumably were negligible as a percentage of collaborators but definitely not as a percentage of the overal population) and the lead cites "less than 0.1%"!?

On a more general note, you think we could convince ArbCom that the "Polish death camp" controversy is related to the Holocaust, which is related to Israel, which is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get EC protection on all of these articles? That would solve the matter pretty handily.

I'm only half tongue-in-cheek; I really think banning all new editors from direct article edits and noticeboard discussions of this kind of topic would be a good idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Various articles related to Poland/Nazis/Jews have been undergoing a spate of disruptive editing. Rangeblocks and protects have been made but please report if more needs to be done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing on Polish topics is already covered by WP:ARBEE, so any warlike acts, persecutions, deaths or misbehavior that occurred on the territory of Poland during World War II are under discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that was the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Added DS warning to the article talk page, citing this discussion, [260]. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 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.

Leila de Lima‎‎

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

---

I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.

It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.

Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"

First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment

This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks.

72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@72.139.196.172: Sorry, you are in the wrong place. Your remarks are valid, but article content is discussed in article talk pages. Admins have no special authority in article editing, unless there are grave conflicts or editors' misbehavior. Please post your comments in Talk:Leila de Lima. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Staszek Sorry for putting this in the wrong place. It has been raised but doesn't seem to be an issue that has been rectified for almost two years. I have re-raised the issue in the talk pages. I have no intent to become an editor sorry for the new IP behind a nat that refreshes regularly

72.139.200.11 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 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.

Behavioral problems with user Robert McClenon

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 Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) placed a warning template on my talk about discretionary sanctions. The warning cited was disruption on editing about living people.

After discussing in December 2017 about the inclusion of Haitian ancestry in the Sammy Sosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, I took the matter to Request for Mediation, but the other editors who previously engaged in the discussion did not show up, then to Third Opinion, where User Robert McClenon replied that more than two editors were involved (including the ones who did not showed up in the Request for Mediation). He then recommended Request for comments and after clarifying the use of a source, he then sent us to Reliable sources noticeboard, and I went there, rigth away.

In both, BLP Noticeboard and Reliable Sources Noticeboard found that no Haitian ancestry should be mentioned, source was found against WP:SPS and not allowed to use it. Following both noticeboards decisions, I have removed the Haitian ancestry content, On 12 February 2018. But on 5 March 2018, the user claiming to include the Haitian ancestry came back. He spent several days discussing againg while I was offline. On 12 March 2018 I noticed that I was mentioned several times while offline in that article talk, then replied that the ancestry matter was already closed, not by third opinion, but mentioned the noticeboards involved, thanking the involved editors.

After that thank you note, User Robert McClenon explained that contentious material must be supported by a reliable source, the other editor never had that reliable source, I was in the same channel with Robert McClenon, but he then warned about using discretionary sanctions, but confessed that he do not understand what the issue was. I clarified again and gave thanks again.

But user Robert McClenon had already left the warning in my talk cited that the other user was warned too and recalled the sanctions we both might suffer. I asked the warning to be removed, because it may be misleading. I have not included any disruption, and edited according the Wikipedia policies. User Robert McClenon replied that he have not reviewed in detail who is being disruptive but were not going to remove the warning. My reply was saying about how irresponsible was warning without any investigation, not willing to do so. He replied that There has been disruptive editing. But he was do not planning to pursue the matter any further. pointed to me to report the other user disruptions, but I have never intended to report the other user on anything, I just need the disrupting editing warning removed. I claimed to him to remove the warning.

User Robert McClenon have been very clear that he was not willing to investigate what was the matter. He just left the warning. I need the warning to be taken down. He should also apoligize for that. I strive to follow the policies. I went to many places to solve that issue and have not included any disruption. I am very dissapointed, any casual reader will not understand that warning, discretionary sanctions? Should I receive those discretionary sanctions I will quit all Wikimedia projects right away, I would not go on knowing that going according, what I believe are the rules, I am harming Wikipedia. Am I acting in bad faith? Is such behavior, waring without any investigation the easy way that really works? If this is a valid way, then I am done, thanks.

Thanks for taking your precious time to consider this matter. --Osplace 03:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions warnings are just a heads up information thing. You may not have done anything wrong and I'm sure Robert did nothing wrong. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the warning is just that, a warning so that you are properly aware that the area you're editing in has been determined to be controversial and therefore subject to greater attention by admins and the possibility of special sanctions. You should think of it as a service provided to you by Robert, to make certain that you're aware of the situation and don't accidentally do anything which may get you into trouble.

As for removing the warning from your talk page, you can go ahead and do that, if you wish. Doing so is taken as an indication that you are aware of the warning, so that -- if you should happen to be sanctioned -- you can't claim that you were never notified about the possibility. Overall, though, I'd think you'd be better off leaving the notice, as a reminder to yourself to watch your step in the subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I, too, have received various discretionary sanctions warnings on my talk page, and I was perhaps a little alarmed the first time. But such a warning is a standardized advisory that any editor making substantive contributions to certain highly controversial articles should receive and read. As long as you comply with the sanctions, you should have no further concerns. Just edit in careful compliance with our policies and guidelines. As for editors who flout the warnings? Well, they have been warned and must face the consequences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, although I really wouldn't treat discretionary sanctions notice as "warnings", as they are technically just notices to make you aware that you have been editing sensitive areas, and can now be sanctioned if there are any misbehaviours. Some editors may be slightly aggressive with these notices, but it isn't really up to them to "investigate". There isn't really anything here; if you (understandably) dislike these templates, just read them and then feel free to remove them and move on. If you'd like to stay with Wikimedia projects for long term, it's better to step back once in a while and avoid drama prone thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The responses here are correct; these "discretionary sanction warnings" are a simple matter of process - they're designed simply to inform you and to make you aware of discretionary sanctions and what they are, and that you're editing an article where discretionary sanctions are authorized. They are not designed to warn, impose, imply, or give any impression that the recipient(s) are at fault or have done anything wrong. As Beyond My Ken stated above, these warning messages (while understandably quite alarming and concerning to receive) are for your benefit in that they serve both as a courtesy to the editor as well as a required process for Administrators before any discretionary sanction can be taken against an editor. I will also agree that receiving such a message can be very daunting for the recipient and is quite understandably intimidating in nature. However the solution to this is to work towards improving the style, color, and look of these warnings so that it doesn't look like a "you did something wrong" kind of warning, as well as improve the wording that's used. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It says right in the header that the purpose of the notice is to let the user know about a general situation, that there is no wrong doing implied on the part of the user, and that the user can ask questions of the person applying the notice to clarify. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• The message left by Robert McClenon[261] is not a even warning, it is just a notification that the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and it "is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault". Read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts. Lorstaking (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that several editors have restated my understanding of the nature of the notice about discretionary sanctions. I disengaged from the discussion with Osplace a week ago after it became clear to me that they wanted nothing short of an apology from me and my removal of the notice, and that any further attempts on my part to explain would probably only result in more of the same. I had already disengaged from researching the details of the disruptive editing on Sammy Sosa. It appeared to me that further explanation on my part would not be useful, and I was willing to let other editors deal with the Sosa situation, or indeed to let it subside. So here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 22 March 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.

Please could we say goodbye

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.

---

To this user. Also revdel the edits, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Done by me and Alex Shih. Fish+Karate 09:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh. My. God.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:33, 22 March 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.

Possible edit warring, personal attack, sock puppet and username issuses

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.

---

• Teambk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Warriors Office (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Today, two user was editing each other on Singapore Premier League and have arguments on User talk:Teambk (possible with personal attack)
• Warriors Office (talk · contribs) edited Warriors FC, they may also violate username policy.
• For sock puppet report, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Teambk, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the case. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:38, 22 March 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:Tr1nalou

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, since I believe others know their way better in these matters then that I do: Draft:Trina Smith was made by a user called User:Tr1nalou. The (now deleted) picture at the draft describes the person as <<redact content from most visible page on project that should not be visible>> I believe this is an attack –page. Could someone please take appropriate actions? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)  Done Oshwah did the job.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:18, 22 March 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.

What kinds of robust debates are allowed?

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.

---

Dear members of the English Wikipedia,

I'm for various reasons no longer a part of this community (see also below), but I noticed that there was a discussion about me going on (which in completion may be read here). Among other things, the terms that were thrown around were idiot or jerk. This is not the first time this has happened on this site, and the reason why I quit was the last time where I was called an ass, and I was blamed for it, by User:Floquenbeam, who also deleted my userpage, and I've serious doubts that it really violates any Wikipedia rules, since it just states things that others have stated about me, and I suppose that for some, reading this may be unpleasant.

Now I'd like to know whether this level of "robust debate" should be allowed, in particular when executed by an administrator of this encyclopedia. I don't know how others feel about that, but I don't like to be called an "idiot" or an "ass" or a "jerk" on the internet, and the other things that were said there I find frankly insulting, counter-productive and simply disheartening.

In the end, the admin User:Floquenbeam wrote about the discussion (cf. again here):

I do kind of appreciate people mocking someone saying stupid things about me, you know?

I hope someone can look into the issue, and I also hope the insults will be swiftly deleted, preferably suppressed. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you know where the Oversight page is, hopefully you read it in enough detail to know that run-of-the-mill insults are not eligible for suppression. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I failed to find the place where this is stated. Can you help? --Mathmensch (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I feel it's a tad hypocritical for me to tell you to grow up whilst at the same time I was making sarcastic comments ... however .... Userpages like this don't belong on any project ...... I would strongly recommend you DROPTHESTICK here and move on otherwise this is only going to end one way and it's not the way you would've hoped. –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Mathmensch, don't change the target of someone else's links. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Repost: Obviously, the page content is still the same, with the exception that the new one shows des certaines langues qui j'ai apprises and a wikibook that I've written (nothing one could concievably want to hide). --Mathmensch (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

For the reader's attention: The link I changed was https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mathmensch&diff=17170879&oldid=17161474#About_me to the wiki-syntactically correct [[meta:User:Mathmensch]], cf. here. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarek also found time to delete two other posts of mine, though they've been restored now, thanks to my request on his userpage.--Mathmensch (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, no. I saw that I had reverted too many edits before I saw your post on my userpage, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've got to be afk for now, since I'm busy, and will return tomorrow to answer any questions that may be left. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was Floquenbeam's talk page was closed to spare your request from further ridicule. Can someone do the same here? Or does it need to be explained in more detail why asking for a desysop because an admin added a space to your talk page is... foolish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If Mathmensch doesn't drop the stick, I'll support some kind of action (probably a site-ban, considering he doesn't appear interested in contributing) the next time this comes up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 22 March 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.

Revoke talk page editing for IP 142.68.172.20 and extend block

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

Continued personal attacks on talk page; obviously not here to contribute. Also tripped some private filters that are disallowed. Please revoke and extend block. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked, but it's probably not necessary to extend the block. It's entirely possible they're on a different IP address already, like they claimed. If so, a range block is the answer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they are still there... Looking at their contributions, it does not look like an IP shared among multiple individuals, or even a dynamic range. I have hardblocked for a month before seeing this thread, but maybe this is a bit too much? -- Luk ^talk 13:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:79.109.125.172

The user 79.109.125.172 does not seem to try to adhere to a neutral point-of-view, but rather seems to be attempting to color articles with a political bias. Changes made by this user have been reverted by other users in the past, including Impru20, Mélencron and Helper201 on articles such as Podemos_(Spanish_political_party) and Pirate_Party. For example 79.109.125.172 changed the Ideology section to say Libertarian Socialism instead of Democratic Socialism and Social liberalism respectively before those edits were reverted.

Today 79.109.125.172 made edits to the following pages, later reverted by me (including a slight edit war); La République En Marche!, Citizens (Spanish political party). For example the Ideology section was changed from Social liberalism, Progressivism and Radical centrism into Neoliberalism, Right-libertarianism and "Capitalist Populism" in the case of the former, and similarly on the latter page which 79.109.125.172 has a history of editing followed by reverts from other users.

To me this looks suspicious and as potentially disruptive behavior, but I could be wrong. I would like some more experienced Wikipedians to weigh in by reviewing this user's edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.109.125.172 and see if some action is appropriate or not.

Thanks you,

Johansunden (talk 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

AtosiOBP (talk · contribs) WP:NOTHERE

Persistent spam-only account for Open Book Publishers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a discussion that has been started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Open_Book_Publishers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was started by a person who run into this for the first time. There is nothing to discuss; A clear case of WP:NOTHERE SPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed this account and two more: Special:Diff/831588463. SmartSE (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Rollback

• Family International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I was advised to report to this page by other editors. I'm a financially contributing Wikipedia user. I recently had edits I had made on a page Rolled back. This was done by User:L293D. As I understand it, and as an editor named "Amory" explained directly to L293D here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni), Rollback is to be used only in cases of Vandalism. If you check the diff: [262] in the right-hand column, I think you'll see that it was indeed a Rollback, and no explanation is given. Furthermore, you can see that my edits were sincere, considered, well-written, added facts (with citation) and were explained as clearly as possible within the 1000-character limit. If someone does not agree with my edits, they can revert with an explanation. It's too late now, the damage is done. It puts me in a bad light, and another editor is perceiving it that way. But if this does not qualify as vandalism, then would you please at least instruct L293D to wield his newly found authority much more carefully & maturely. This represented much time on my part, and seeing the power of someone to dismiss information as "vandalism" in a cursory manner, without discussion, and leading to flagging & further complications, is not at all encouraging for further contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading. (NOTE: I have sent a copy of this complaint to L293D, as required.) JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@JohnnyJohnnyG: There is no record in your history of your having notified L293D of anything. See the instructions at the top of this page for the proper way to do so. General Ization ^Talk 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnny, you are new but you are already treading on very thin ice because of your conduct. Three experienced users have reverted your edits, not just the one you mention. Vandalism isn't the only reason for reverting another user's edits, and given the kind of edits you've been making - removing negative material from the article - it's not surprising that editors reverted. This is a very controversial article, and glancing at it I can see that some of the existing material should probably be toned down to be more neutral and faithful to the cited sources. That said, your edits are unacceptable. I suggest you stick to the article Talk page and argue why your edits are appropriate. During that discussion, you should not touch the article unless there is a clear consensus in your favor or partly in your favor. Otherwise, you will probably be blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

E/C Well JohnnyJohnny, you made some poor edits using poor sources and were reverted by more than one editor. nothing will happen to anybody here, except perhaps some admonishments. Personally I'd only admonish you, but it's probably due to inexperience. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel it is also worth noting that one's financial contributions to wikipedia, or lack thereof, do not matter one whit in disputes such as these. One's edits are judged on their own merits; Wikipedia is not "pay to win". Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@JohnnyJohnnyG: note that if you are sure that I made a mistake (I make some from time to time) every editor has the right to press the "undo" link and undo the previous edit. Rollback is just a permission to revert several edits in a row if they are by the same person. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback should never be used to revert a good faith edit though. It is for removal of vandalism, removal of your own edits, or to remove widespread issues with an appropriate explanation. Sperril (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: please clarify that you understand the mentioned limitations on your use of the rollback tool. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what rollback is to be used for. I was pointing out that if I mistook their edit for vandalism and that it was not, they could always undo my edit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use of Rollback in this situation could apply under circumstance 5) "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia", as JohnnyJohnnyG was removing sourced material from a sensitive article; however, a note should have been left on the talkpage under the clause: "provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Essentially, the principle in restoring the removed content was acceptable, but the method used was dubious, allowing JohnnyJohnnyG to create this incident report. This is like a law officer arresting someone for assault, but forgetting to read them their rights, so they get off on a technicality, and they go assault someone again the next day. So: @L293D:, please ensure you do the paperwork correctly in future. And @JohnnyJohnnyG:, stop removing sourced content from articles. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, in case you didn't see the tag, the rollback was made with Huggle. I had no idea that I even was on that page. I just saw that someone had removed sourced content, so I pressed Q (or R, I'm not sure). Sorry for all the disruption that derived from my rollback, if I had known I just would have let it for another user. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Evilness is incomprehensible

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.

---

Yesterday, there was a thread started by User:Mathmensch that's been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#What kinds of robust debates are allowed? After that thread was closed, they posted on their userpage stating that Human evilness remains incomprehensible to me. Since the thread begins I'm for various reasons no longer a part of this community, they have fairly explicitly identified themselves as a troll, and they're continuing to engage in personal attacks such as the above, I suggest that they are no longer here to contribute, and strongly recommend an indefinite block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, this is not a personal attack. Also, I'm only here because I don't want to be called an ass, a jerk, an idiot or silly. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The poster is jumbling together a string of unrelated statements of my userpage. And I'm not self-identifying as a troll, I've merely posted a picture of a troll on my userpage. I've contributed 20 articles and a wikibook. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support and was strongly considering opening this myself when I saw that they not only restored the link to the diatribe on meta (of which I'm graciously a part now), but have been doing nothing for the past day but raising a stink on (by my count) nine different user pages when they haven't so much as breathed in the direction of an article for almost eight months. If they want to actually contribute they can file an unblock request, but editing privileges are not designed solely for the purpose of drama, without even the pretense that they plan to do anything that's actually productive. GMG^talk 14:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• They added the link to the meta diatribe after PMC had warned them they were up against a NOTHERE block. I've done the needful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 23 March 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:Jaco IV

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 continually reverts my edits without explanation. I have tried to engage him in discussion on his talk page (User_talk:Jaco_IV#Italian_basketball_clubs_in_European_and_worldwide_competitions), where I provided links to the places in the MoS which explain the purpose and the benefits of my actions but he simply will not discuss it. This pattern of behaviour has been going on for some weeks now. Here is the link showing his recent reversion of my edits to more than 30 articles without even an edit summary [263]. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and forum shopping. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. A report has already been filed regarding this situation and handled appropriately. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page and discuss the issues so that they come to a consensus and close. Since this has already seen admin eyes at WP:AN3, I'm closing this discussion here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 24 March 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.

LTA, aggressive edit-warring socks run rampant while SPI is running slow

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.

---

WP:LTA, aggressive edit-warring socks of master Marios2134454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have infested articles related to AEK Athens F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and are creating articles, edit-warring, and editing at will. The SPI process is running slow, so the socks have plenty of time to cause disruption. The SPI clerk has declared a quacking result, and the case is awaiting admin attention, but none has materialised. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much NinjaRobotPirate. Best regards. Dr. K. 19:12, 23 March 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.

Blocked?

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 did an article on the Hash-Slinging Slasher from the show Spongebob Squarepants. Why have I been blocked?-Patrik Stur March 23, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrik stur (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're able to edit here, you're not blocked. Is it possible you were trying to edit while not logged in, and your IP is blocked? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 23 March 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:CamdenEric

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

Something odd here. Newly-created account (2018-03-13), all edits (91 so far) focused around the actor Stephen Collins and similarly-named articles. Username similar to a character played by the actor: Eric Camden.

Not particularly unusual so far, but:

1. CamdenEric seems to know en.wp processes unusually well for a new editor: their 12th edit[264] was a PROD, 22d edit[265] an AFD, 68th edit[266] was opening a well-formed SPI.
2. CamdenEric seems keen to delete articles on other people named Stephen Collins/Steve Collins: PRODs and/or AFDs on 3 of the pages listed at Stephen Collins (disambiguation)
3. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiernanmc (opened by CamdenEric), checkuser @Bbb23 notes the filer knows that person or persons, and there's bad blood between them. I have more to say but for the moment choose not to.
4. that bad blood can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Collins (journalist) and at WP:AN[267]

I dunno what all this amounts to, but it looks odd. More eyes on it would be welcome.

(Disclosure: I stumbled on this after spotting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Collins (journalist) listed at WP:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I had thought the exact same thoughts when I first encountered this editor a week or so agaon, BrownHairedGirl. Looks odd and troublesome, for sure. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. This is indeed my first username account but I have been editing on a variety of IP dresses over the years e.g. hopping on to my sister's computer to fix this and that. I created this account to help out with the editing of one of my favorite actors and stumbled upon the page that lists all the people named Stephen Collins. I didn't ask for all of them to be deleted just the ones that I thought were not as notable (I even voted to keep some articles I nominated to delete). I certainly did not mean to cause any harm on anyones page, I'm just trying to help out. However you are very right, that there is "bad blood" between me and the user Kiernanmc. After looking through the deletion page for one of the Steve Collins, I quickly caught that there was one major contributor. I clicked on the username, and on the username page there was a link to a Facebook account of someone with the same last name as the subject. That is so not okay. And then I noticed that there was another contributor who added unsourced information, after clicking on their contributions log, it was clear to me that they were editing the same pages (and they were all super specific), so I looked up "multiple accounts on Wikipedia" and followed the step-by-step process on filing a investigation. Again, I'm so sorry if I stepped on anyones toes, I'm just trying to do the right thing here. CamdenEric (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

52.206.0.0/16

There have been numerous frivolous unblock requests from 52.206.0.0/16 since it was blocked. Revoke talk page? Septrillion (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done I will however add that I am not altogether comfortable with a range block set for five years. Is there something here that I am missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: See: https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json . Large amounts of 52.x are AWS us-east-1, aka accessible by anyone who starts a free trial account and wants to use it to make a wacky VPN ( e.g. 52.20.0.0/14). We should probably block everything in that file. SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The unblock requests are all coming from a lone /24 which is obviously a school using filtering software. A more useful block message might be useful. Indeed a soft block might be more appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I bow to my more tech savvy fellow admins. Please feel free to modify the block in any way you believe appropriate. We should probably keep Slakr in the loop as the original blocking admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I love how these cats talk so smart, and all I can do is be impressed by them. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies Hehe. My command of tech topped out with the advent of the electric typewriter. It was a wondrous thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially the Selectric and its "golf ball". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, most if not all of aws's ranges are blocked for the exact reasons mentioned (i.e., free tier allows anyone to ip hop within seconds). This was done on request after a discussion among some checkusers and admins a little while back. I wouldn't recommend disabling talk page access, however, as there might be some AWS corporate-office ranges hidden in there that should be able to request unblocking. Nor would I suggest converting a range to a soft block unless you can be reasonably positive there aren't public ec2 ranges in there. The simplest way to check an unblock request is to reverse-lookup the IP (e.g., you'll see something like ec2-*.compute-1.amazonaws.com, with the keywords being "ec2" and "compute". Those are poor candidates for unblocking or softening of the block. Otherwise, I'd say just grant IPBE if the person is likely to be a legit user. Feel free to do whatever, though; these are just suggestions. --slakr^\ talk / 17:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits by Baderjf

I'm starting this thread following NeilN's suggestion [268]. Baderjf (talk · contribs) does not seem to understand what "adding sources" mean and they continue making unsourced modifications. Diffs:

• At King Fahd International Airport [269] [270]
• At Flynas [271] [272].

Please also note that, regarding the addition of unsourced content, the user had been given a final warning at their talk in 2016. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Pro-burmese, nationalist, disruptive editing, copyvios and spam

Special:Contributions/103.233.205.57 seems to be here to promote the country of Burma and its military, or various websites, removing human rights abuses in the country from an article [273], posting many copyvios that seem to be pure spam, or posting spammy external links. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Identity Evropa

• Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is under pending revisions, so there's no rush, but it looks to me as if there's socking going on with both accounts and IPs: compare the length and quality of edit summaries from various editors. Can someone take a look, or should I file a formal SPI? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Page is now semiprotected six months by User:Acroterion. Even with semi in place, if we continue to notice aggressive editing from newly registered accounts there might be a case for WP:ECP. In spite of its European-sounding name this is an American group so WP:ARBAP2 applies. If you check the edit history you'll already notice several new accounts that have been indef blocked by various admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec> I semi-protected before I saw this because the volume of major revisions to the organization's stated ideology, with attendant removals of references, is beyond what PC is intended to manage. There is a steady stream of new accounts making significant changes along similar lines. I'm inclined to think its meatpuppets coming from off-site. The volume of edits and their scope have picked up substantially over the past couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback, Passing Judgement and Threats to Block

In the Proto-Indo-European homeland article, I have made some additions with multiple authentic citations and references but editor User:Joshua Jonathan is repeatedly removing the content I added without even trying to build a consensus or providing valid reasons. The user is trying to make a personal judgement and interpretation on the content and even warning to block me. I would appreciate if the content is discussed and agreed upon rather than passing judgement and threats. ---User talk:Truthteller301

• Apparently your additions are a WP:FRINGE theory. I suggest you discuss the issue with User:Joshua Jonathan on the article talk page rather than here, since that is the normal procedure. The discussion is already started (Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#"Truthteller") so please, discuss at the correct venue. Also your behaviour is hardly innocent, you have sent warning templates to Joshua Jonathan rather than simply discussing the issue, which it seems has been dealt with before, and there is an existing consensus against your edits, to change this you would have to get a new consensus. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Truthteller301 is ignoring concencus, re-inserting text which was objected to by several senior editors, and copying info from other articles plus WP:OR to give WP:UNDUE attention to a WP:FRINGE theory; see Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#"Truthteller". See also User talk:Truthteller301 for an appreciation of his behavior in his short Wiki-career. NeilN may like to comment here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• <<ec>>@Truthteller301: You have already been noticed regarding Discretionary Sanctions. I would be very careful right now. It seems to be you are misrepresenting matters here.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate if User:Joshua Jonathan would discuss the section with me and not make a judgement on what is fringe and what is valid. I am open to constructive discussions on the content but User:Joshua Jonathan is engaging in passing judgement and threats. He has done the same with editors like User talk:Gioferri. ---[[User talk:Truthteller301]]

He isn't making judgement, he is simply upholding consensus. It seems you don't like that and have been abusing him to try and get your prefered edits reinstated. As far as Gioferri is concerned, reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae would be of help. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Truthteller301's abusive post on JJ's page suggests they have a competence issue, as well as being here to promote a fringe theory. If you continue to attack people you will be sanctioned for personal attacks, Truthteller. (Well, unless an admin blocks you indefinitely for disruptive editing first.) Telling a constructive and and experienced editor such as JJ that they're not here to build an encyclopedia is serious as well as ridiculous. Did you even read WP:NOTHERE? Please don't throw policies in people's faces at random. And, as the Prince of Thieves says, please don't take content disagreements to WP:ANI, that's not what this board for; discuss on the article's talkpage or use dispute resolution. This section can be closed IMO, unless somebody wants to issue a boomerang. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, Instead of lecturing me on what is ridiculous, you should go through not here to build an encyclopedia, Does is allow intimidation and threats ?. What abusive post and attacks are you referring to ? I asked him for proof and reasons. If you cannot come up with valid counter arguments about the content I added then you are here just to defend your friend and nothing else. Provide the sources and references which definitively disprove the genetic evidence I cited, don't argue for argument sake. --User talk:Truthteller301

Unwitting Sheeple

Prince of Thieves

A guy with a username with some variation of "truther" spouting nonsense about fringe theories? Color me shocked! Honestly, do these folks think they are clever with their usernames? They end up looking like the sheeple they claim to be fighting against. Ya ain't as clever as you think you are. --Tarage (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, It's clear who is who. Instead of talking about my name, can you argue against the content I posted, apparently not. I seems you all only follow the intimidation and name calling strategy. If you cannot counter the content point by point then you are definitely not as clever as you think you are.--User talk:Truthteller301

I've a boomerang in my back pocket that I've been thinking about pulling out since this started. Truthteller301, you seem here to argue and pick fights. That is NOTHERE. Not telling you what is or is not constructive. And you would do well to not lecture someone like Bishonen. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnathan is not making the fringe judgement. That is the consensus of the community. You might wish to peddle your wares at one of the WP:alternative outlets.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one about to be blocked buddy. If you're so bloody clever why are you completely unable to enact the change you and yours want? Is it, like, the system, man? The sheeple leading the flock? How butthurt are you going to be when you don't get your way? --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Truthteller301 was very close to being sanctioned in the BLP area per this exchange. If they're making similar "very appropriate edits and changes" in other areas then that's a concern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please consider as posted: old saw about accounts with "truth" in the name. See WP:RGW Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Truthteller301: You're the one who has started the trouble, both your new account and the old one Truthprevailsalways (talk · contribs). Read WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT. And don't shoot yourself in the foot by posting reports like this one. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)