Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive986

Request for Discussion on Hastily Closed Topic Ban (Not An Appeal)

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

---

I don't believe it's fair for the topic ban to not be able to be appealed for another 6 months. I was unaware of the topic ban and 2 admins assumed good faith [1]. The edits I made in the past few weeks (after no editing for 10 months) were all good or mostly good edits. I think that when someone has devoted countless hours to improving an article (researching, source gathering, proofreading), if another editor then objects to the changes, that editor should make modifications rather than obliterate all of the valuable content and revert the article to poor condition. There are many recent examples of this done by NinjaRobotPirate and Yamla, except they weren't doing it out of interest for the articles. They were just going through my edit history and reverting everything one by one.

I don't like ambiguity, discrepancies or inaccuracies. Articles with these flaws tend to have a low volume of editing activity. I edit articles that need improvement and that no one else is willing to put the necessary effort into. Effort needs to put into them because these days, mainstream media uses Wikipedia as their source of information. Access Hollywood has repeated sentences word for word from Wiki. So, by reverting articles to poor condition, you're indirectly purporting falsity.

The editor who pointed out the topic ban, NinjaRobotPirate, made blatantly false accusations on my talk page [2]. He wrote "you added unsourced gossip to a BLP" when in fact, the page he linked was not a BLP, and the edit he linked was not gossip at all, but a well known, neutral biographical fact. I replied to NinjaRobotPirate, explaining (in a polite tone) that what he'd just written on my talk page was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate refused to participate in the very discussion he started, and after ignoring my replies, he posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I can't say his initial post was a lie, because I don't know if the falsity of it was intentional, but his behavior fits the definition of harassment. It also fits the definition of passive-aggressive.

I waited a long time for the opportunity to edit again and have demonstrated diligence in my edits. Having followed the standard offer, an additional 6 month wait to appeal a topic ban that I didn't even know existed is unreasonable.

I recently requested the topic ban be reconsidered here [3]. It was a short request, and the first replier critiqued "Iistal gives no explanation as to why the project would benefit from the topic ban being lifted." [4] Before I had a chance to reply to that with an explanation, the section was closed so I had to make another one to write out an explanation. In that section, an editor said "It's reasonable to assume that Iistal was unaware of an active topic ban." [5] It was swiftly closed. Iistal (talk) 04:38, 19 June 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.

Dream Focus repeatedly insinuating that I have a mental illness, etc.

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

---

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly questioning my mental state and refusing to retract these comments despite repeated warnings. I have been placing the warnings directly beneath the attacks in question rather than on his talk page since I'm banned from the latter. I can't imagine how anyone could consider remarks like the following to be acceptable.

Quotes and diffs of "you are insane"-type comments

of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan[6] (this one's weak, but given my unfortunate history of being accused on-wiki of "paranoia", this is difficult for me not read in the same light) There has never been any evidence of any keep spamming no matter how many times certain self deluded people keep claiming it as such.[7] I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you.[8] [in response to a request to strike the above] Not going to happen.[9] Will someone please click on the link he provided [in reference to the diff immediately above] and tell him he is blocking out reality?[10] As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things?[11] (note that this was in response to a very clear, unambiguous "dude, you're going to be blocked -- take the hint; I'm being very careful to give you every out that I can, and you'd be stupid not to take them" final warning[12]) ignoring your crazy nonsense as always[13] You believe people are out to get you[14]

Inappropriate personal remarks that are not about my mental state

He's also been making less egregious but still clearly inappropriate remarks like Still stalking me? Have no life at all do you, just obsessed with someone who dared disagree with you, and got to follow them around bothering them nonstop. [...] you just determined to repeat the same bullshit lies every chance you get.[15] Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. ... I also find it ridiculous someone can go to a Wikiproject they hate just to insult it constantly and spread lies every chance they get.[16] You whine about stopping the personal attacks but then insult me with that idiotic lie.[17] Of course you only know found yoru way here because you are still stalking me[18] Kindly stop insulting people with your constant lies about the project or anyone who dares disagree with you anywhere on Wikipedia[19] Do you deny you want to destroy the ARS? Have you not stated multiple times in various places you want it deleted? That's not hyperbole, that's fact.[20] (note that I actually requested a diff in support of the claim that I "stated multiple times in various places I want [the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject] deleted" two weeks ago and DF has ignored this request despite making similar claims that I'm "not interested" in ARS.[21] Is English not your first language?[22] (as a rhetorical question: he definitely knows English is my first language, and I knowing that "believing everyone is out to get you" is equivalent to "being paranoid" is not really related; ironically this is WP:KETTLE, since DF rarely writes grammatically, he frequently inserting ungrammatical subjective pronouns into adverbial clauses, including immediately after insulting my English: "You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY" -- obviously poor grammar on talk pages is not a problem, but he regularly writes ungrammatical articles, sometimes butchering a source's grammar in an attempt at "paraphrase", and users with poor English writing insulting other editors for not making mistakes is clearly inappropriate.) He also has a habit of misquoting Shakespeare in a manner that implies either he is accusing me of hypocrisy (in which case he has misunderstood the quote) or he believes attacking other editors in this manner is a core part of his personality, to which he must remain true.[23][24]

Addressing "following" claims, and the reason this editor probably should have been indeffed before I ever came in contact with him

What's worse is that he's continuously accusing me of hounding him (in some of the diffs above, and especially here), when in fact what happened was I noticed, based on his actions on an article to which he followed me,[25][26][27] that he is a serial plagiarist, and checked his contribs to see how deep went the rabbit hole: it's pretty deep, but he has continually denied that it constituted plagiarism, even denying that he used a copy-paste function as though that made it better, despite there sometimes being no alternative explanation. And the only places I followed him to that weren't related to copyvio (the above "yoru way" diff related to an incident in which he clumsily copied obviously plagiarized text onto Wikia in order to "rescue" it from our deletion policy) were AFDs he chose to promote via the "rescue list". [Edit: It should also be noted that he has done a lot more blatant "hounding" of me than I have of him, most recently here making an off-topic attack against me in an AN thread (nothing about wanting to TBAN people who "disagree with me", but rather with wanting to TBAN editors who routinely pretend to be experts on a wide variety of topics they clearly know nothing about), in his second post to the main AN page since 2014. The first was here, where he showed up to a thread about plagiarism by long-term editors and unsurprisingly took the opposite side to me.]

Normally, editors who repeatedly violate copyright and deny any wrongdoing even after multiple warnings get blocked on those grounds alone to prevent the further plagiarism that appears almost certain to happen, right? So what we have here is an editor who shouldn't even be allowed contribute to the encyclopedia because of the risk of copyvio, harassing other editors and questioning their mental state: I really can't see how this editor has not been blocked for this yet, with the only explanation I can think of being that TonyBallioni (my traditional go-to for copyright issues) and his talk page watchers are too "involved".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Note that I didn't hunt down all the diffs of him receiving warnings over copyvio and denying any wrongdoing (there are probably dozens going back to late February); the reason for this is that this thread is primarily about the personal attacks. If anyone needs more diffs of the copyvio and related denialism, they can be provided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

BTWs, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) can vouch for my having discretely (for DF's benefit) and carefully done a lot more sleuthing than I disclosed publicly on the copyvio issues as early as "Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM" (that's how the date stamp appeared in his reply to my email). It does go pretty deep. TonyBallioni (who I suspect probably doesn't want to be pinged on this) can as well, per this. Also this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you added in something new, I'll respond to it. Please look at the proper link User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning, not just what he linked to which eliminates a key part of it. Dream Focus 09:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you or Tony retroactively changed something weeks later without updating your sigs, I'm pretty sure I did link the whole conversation...? Rather, your linking to the live version of your talk without noting that it's the result of your having to be warned a second time after blanking the original warnings is what "eliminates a key part of it" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You deliberately left off part of the conversation. Dream Focus 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. That said, there was nothing "deliberate" about it: gathering page history ranges (as opposed to individual diffs, which would not be as useful in this case) is tough and it's really easy to make mistakes; this is borne out by the fact that the edits I left out actually make you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since you just added something to your collapsed bit above, without dating it for some reason, I'll just post a reply to it here. [28] We are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I did in fact while searching about go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard and saw Andrew D. mentioned there, and also have his talk page on my watchlist. I wasn't the only one who said there was no case made against him, and it was closed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. As for the old case [29] you complain that I disagreed with you, despite I not even noticing you. You also link to my first comment only, instead of the entire conversation which shows I was convinced to change my mind by the reasonable arguments of TonyBallioni, that the official website of the book in question could've just copied things from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I did not respond to anything you said, nor do I even remember you being there. I certainly wasn't following you. And I have been there before then on multiple times in my many years at Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I did date it; I just mistakenly placed the date after the addendum to my OP comment rather than the OP comment itself, as I am editing on a mobile device that doesn't allow for searching within the edit box, and all of this text kinda runs together in the edit window. I have now fixed it. You should strike that part of your comment, as it looks like you are looking for any excuse to undermine me that you can find. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see the date listed. Try again. And if you think it looks like someone is trying to undermine you, that's a problem with how you perceive others. You need to just assume good faith and stop thinking everyone is out to get you with every single thing they do. Dream Focus 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Check the diffs. Here's the original edit and you can clearly see it is in two parts, one being an extra date added to my signature, but a few lines down from the right signature; here's my correction, and as of right now you can clearly see (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)) immediately following my signature on the OP comment. Are you deliberately not checking at this point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was checking the collapsed area where you actually made the post. That is where you should put it. While you have admitted to following me around on multiple occasions, even after being told quite clearly not to by an administrator, I have never followed you anywhere since I would honestly prefer to avoid you entirely. Dream Focus 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also you made that addition because of my edit down below [30] it should've been there in the same area, or a new section for clarity. Dream Focus 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a script running that highlights collapse templates whose contents have been edited since you last uncollapsed them? It seems much more likely, especially given the time gap of only 34 minutes, that you noticed I had edited this thread in the page history, checked the content of the diff, and missed that the date tag had been added but had been added to the wrong place. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes like this, but when you come up with elaborate excuses about how you really didn't make a mistake but had just happened to be rereading the top of this thread and noticed my addition of text under a collapse template, but couldn't find when I had made it ... well, it looks like you just have some severe mental block on admitting you made a mistake, which is a problem when you make them so frequently (cf. the IDHT regarding copyvio, assuming it was actually just laziness with paraphrasing rather than a serious inability to understand our copyright policy; if it was e latter, and you sincerely understood that what you had been doing was wrong, you should have done what I did here with the mistaken pagehist grabs that cut off the end of the conversation and said "Shit, you're right"); or, worse, you are attempting to drag this discussion down with pointless wikilawyering over the proper signing and dating of edits.

Anyway, the reason for adding it under the collapse templates at the top is that I am trying to keep all the independent evidence of your disruption at the top of the thread where any new readers are more likely to notice it. (This was the first one that required a substantial amount of original prose elaboration on my part, so it was the first time I altered my sig for it.) That you keep making new disruptive edits while this discussion is ongoing is ... well, it's not my fault.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The dating should be where the edit was made, not beneath a collapsed section in small letters next to an existing date so no one is likely to notice. And "severe mental block" seems like it'd be considered a personal attack by some. If I said that to you you'd add it to your list up there and be whining about it. Admitting you are keeping things where more people will see it and not my response, seems like you are gaming the system. Each individual thing should be separate for me to respond to and for people to comment on. 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Some evidence of copyvio; more can be found if needed

(edit conflict) Anyway, much of the early history of our list of Duck Dynasty episodes needs revdel, and while our Duck Dynasty article is a little more of a grey area as even DF's original version was closely paraphrased rather than directly copy-pasted (Phil Robertson claims to have spent 25 years standing in his dilapidated shed, handcrafting duck calls from the native cedar trees of the swamps of Monroe Louisiana. =/= For 25 years, Robertson said he stood in his dilapidated shed and handcrafted duck calls out of cedar trees native to Monroe-area swamps.; They previously were on the Outdoor Channel with the series Duck Commander. =/= The family has already had some television exposure on the Outdoor Channel with a series called “Duck Commander,” -- our Duck Commander article includes the same closely paraphrased text and has done since DF started it), it definitely is not true that plagiarism has never been an issue with this editor. Particularly interesting is this somewhat pointily edit-summaried blanking of a copyvio tag roughly a week before the copyvio in question was removed. Note that his very rarely making substantial prose additions to articles makes locating these problems on a brief scan of his contribs difficult, but the vast majority of the ones I checked had such problems. This was DF's handiwork, too, as was this; his original draft of Puzzle Puppers didn't include plagiarism, but it had barely two substantial sentences worth of prose, and both of those technically misrepresented the cited sources. The paraphrasing in this article wasn't too close, but it did contain text that had clearly been copy-pasted and then a random chunk of it blanked, so that it misrepresented the source, but had the text not been blanked it would have been copyvio. Here he showed a pretty poor understanding of the "no close paraphrasing" policy, even if the copyvio text itself was not his fault. This contained similar "close paraphrasing", as DF's Bruns states that his property is covered with booby traps, and his neighbors are serious preppers with lots of guns was much too close to Our neighbors are pretty serious preppers, with lots of guns, and there's lots of booby traps on our property. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sigh. Taking things out of context. First off, I did not follow him to that one article in question, I simply saw it mentioned, and tried to suggest improvements on the talk page, and then constant arguments erupted from there. He has appeared after me quite a number of times, so yes, was stalking/hounding me for awhile there. Now he hangs out at the Article Rescue Squadron just to insult the project and its members, despite stating multiple times he wants it deleted/destroyed/retired/whatever the words used were. Please read things in context and not his quotes he has given you. He says "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" I then responding "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this."
• The most recent problem had him erasing someone else's post [31] and playing the victim as always. Please read the conversation after that if nothing else. You'll see he follows the same pattern for months now. He shows up at AFD the Rescue Squadron is at, and brings up all manner of random things during the arguments, won't stay on topic. Recently an article I created went up to AFD despite clearly passing GNG Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puzzle_Puppers and you can see how he rants off the topic, making wild accusations about other things instead of staying on topic. Note I never stated he had a mental illness, please just read what was actually said in context before commenting. Dream Focus 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I for one would be very happy if ARS was disbanded. It is abused and the issue has been raised on several past occasions at the drama boards. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I know the community is on my side (that ARS's mission statement is noble in theory, but that it doesn't actually do that a lot in practice, and that it sometimes serves to push fringe theories and promotional fluff off AFD, and might be better served by an overhaul of some kind), but I don't want to have that discussion right now. FWIW, I think your main concern is with Indian topics where the promotion of fringe theories can be (and have been) met with discretionary sanctions: making ARS "historical" would not ameliorate that situation as the problem is not really so bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. @User:Dream Focus, Leaving aside the matter of problematic editing on either your part or User:Hijiri88's, I think it's clear that your comments are out of line and the excuse about "questionable mental state" being taken out of context is somewhat disingenuous because we can all see the implication in the particular wording you chose to use. You may feel you have had provocation, but the best thing to do in these circumstances would be just to apologise and not do it again. He is then obliged to assume good faith, accept your apology and move on. Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Dream Focus definitely needs to tone down the rhetoric. That being said, as an outside observer with no prior background knowledge of the interaction between these two users, it certainly appears as if Hijiri88 was trying to pick a fight on the Puzzle Peppers AfD. He seemed more concerned with discrediting Dream Focus than with actually discussing the article in question. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: If you read my first comment in isolation (as opposed to my later responses to DF's off-topic personal attacks), it's clear that what I was doing was adding to the already-stated notability concerns the observation that the article's creator was clumsy and didn't check. I would have done the same whether I had a "grudge" against said creator or not, as can be seen by my having made a similar comment on the "Wife and Wife" and "Virtues" AFDs. And there's also the fact that carelessly adding junk sub-stubs to the mainspace that contain egregious errors and not much else is also a recurring problem with DF (just not one I chose to focus on in this ANI thread) -- see for example [32]. Anyway, given that much of the evidence against DF dates from as early as February, it doesn't really make sense to call 50-50 based solely on an AFD from a week ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting description of your first comment, and I don't find myself in agreement. Dream Focus claimed that the article had received significant coverage, and you responded by observing that he had a different reason for creating the article. As long as the article has sufficient coverage, who cares? His first response to you remained focused on the notability of the article under discussion, but then you brought up an unrelated AfD in an attempt to discredit his argument. It's not hard to see why he was annoyed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How can him being "annoyed" because of something that happened in the last week justify what has been going on for weeks if not months? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not justifying anything. His comments are not appropriate and he needs to change his approach. I'm simply pointing out that in the one incident that I reviewed, you were the instigator. Lepricavark (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The link [33] you mention is an interesting one. Someone post on the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue List to ask for help, and Hijiri88 starts his standard rant about canvassing nonsense insulting the project saying "most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" while pretending to be familiar with whatever topic is under discussion.", and I tell them to ignore him and his ridiculous lies. Dream Focus 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, actually you made the standard rant about canvassing: I had advised the poster in question that since apparently no one on ARS except me reads Japanese, posting to WT:JAPAN (which I also watch) would probably be more effective. And no, it's not the "ridiculous lies" that I was trying to draw attention to: it's your calling me "deluded" almost two weeks before I "annoyed" you on the Puzzle Puppers AFD. Are you just posting as much nonsense as possible in this thread in order to filibuster it so you can get off without a block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note I did not comment in the virtues AFD, he is confusing me with someone else. As for Wife and Wife, he followed my contributions, saw a talk page where I told someone that article they created that was up for deletion they could preserve it over at my manga wikia. User_talk:GlitchyM.#You_can_move_your_article_to_the_manga_wikia He would not have found his way there otherwise. Dream Focus 15:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Please read other editors' comments before attacking them like that -- I clearly linked those AFDs because you weren't the clumsy article creator I was addressing in either of them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• He also nominated an article I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma insisting I made it to prove a point, but refuses to tell me what that point was. After four people showed up and all said KEEP he then asks someone to close the article [34] claiming his deletion nomination was "attracting unwanted negative attention from the article's creator among others" and that I was somehow slinging mud at him by responding to his comments he made even after he withdrew his nomination. This is just one example of how he is convinced others are out to get him. Dream Focus 15:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Dream Focus's personal comments regarding Hijiri 88, documented above, are definitely out-of-line. They need to stop. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The combative conduct of both Hijiri 88 and Dream Focus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers has been shocking and utterly unacceptable. Both should be ashamed. I will block either or both if I see that kind of behavior again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: FWIW, I would have apologized for the off-topic commentary at the top of this thread, had I not already decided days earlier to disown it by striking my !vote and walking away from the AFD altogether, but if it helps I should probably clarify that I do regret engaging in it in the first place and will try to avoid such incidents in the future. I was annoyed because of the mental health and other attacks, but that doesn't justify dragging down a content discussion with off-topic personal stuff, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Shit. Didn't notice that you had actually done the one thing I originally wanted to come out of this thread. No reason to argue with someone who did me a favour. The only reason I'm not striking the above is that striking an apology for my own sub-optimal behaviour could be misinterpreted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: well, that was probably because he did it 9 minutes after that comment. Easy to muddle timestamps that close together, though, especially if you're running in a different timezone to GMT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: No, he had done it two hours before I responded, so it doesn't matter which order he did it in. I responded to what I saw here, and only noticed the comment on DF's talk page by accident later, even though both had been made while I was asleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Really? i feel like I'm missing something here, as the diff you linked was 22:22, while your post was 22:13. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. Sorry -- as has been noted elsewhere, I have a tendency to take AGF too far. Still, even if Cullen only issued that warning after demanding I apologize for an incident in which I was the victim, and even if he has been ignoring the evidence that my initial comment was not off-topic (since "the article's creator has a recurring tendency to leave clumsy, draft-level content containing blatant errors, copyvio and more in the mainspace" is not off-topic when the article under discussion is apparently more of the same) ... well, I still should not have gone off-topic on the AFD in the first place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Where the heck did I demand that you apologize, Hijiri88? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So what did you want me to do if not apologize? Why did you wait until after I had apologized for the one, brief incident in which I dropped the ball in order to warn DF about the personal attacks that were meant to be the subject of this thread, and why have you still not acknowledged that they were not just a reaction to the Puzzle Puppers AFD, even though most of them predate it? Would you have issued that warning had I not apologized? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to begin? Let's start with the timing of my warning to Dream Focus. Just as you sometimes sleep, I also sometimes do other things out in the real world. I decided to issue the warning but made that decision while I was driving about ten miles to a nice restaurant for a previously scheduled lunch with my wife. I issued the warning at the restaurant table after placing our order and while waiting for our meal, which was grilled halibut, a Caesar salad, and an average white wine. My decision to warn DF was completely unrelated to whether or not you apologized, and was partly motivated by a comment that Robert McClenon made. I care very little about apologies, although they are nice and I am always happy to offer one. I care most of all about preventing disruption and encouraging better behavior in the future. That I am not always successful in that endeavor should be obvious, but the community gave me the administrator's tools for a reason, and I do my best. I prefer to be concise, though it seems I am failing here. In that spirit, I analyzed your behavior at the Puzzle Puppers AfD, rather than posting a lengthy wall of text about all of your interactions with the other behavior. I encourage you to realize that your wall of text behavior is not in your best interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, in the context of the above conversation, I found this edit by DF with a personal attack in the edit summary. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I told him to stay off my talk page, he then ranting about something so I used the edit summary (ignoring your crazy nonsense as always) when reverting him. In context, do you honestly believe that is a personal attack? Dream Focus 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-way no fault IBAN

I basically proposed this to the two of you on my own, but it doesn’t appear to have worked, so I suggest we make it formal, not because anyone is at fault, but because it’s better for everyone (yourselves included in my view) if the two of you don’t interact. You both clearly don’t like each other, and I’ve been involved in enough discussions to know that this is just going to be a back and forth, so I’m going ahead and proposing: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and Dream Focus (talk · contribs) are placed under a two-way no fault IBAN, subject to the usual exceptions.

• Support as proposer and emphasis on no fault so this can’t be used against either of them elsewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• What about keeping him from posting on the Article Rescue Squadron, since he hates the project, wants to get rid of it, and does nothing but argue with people constantly there? The only time I end up having to interact with him is when he posts there or in an article listed for request for rescue. Dream Focus 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, his view that ARS is a net-negative to the community is not a fringe one. Your implying he is mentally ill and his personality not meshing with yours should not prevent him from comment there. The two of you just shouldn’t talk to each other. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • So when he post something such as his recent proposal to keep anyone from using capital letters when they say an AFD ended in KEEP Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Listing_"results"_on_the_rescue_list_creating_a_false_impression_of_more_articles_being_rescued_than_not?, am I not suppose to comment on that? I was the one in question who did that at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Learning_by_teaching and I asked him there why anyone would care, he explaining his point of view, which no one seems to agree with. Dream Focus 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously good-faith but problematic proposed solution Primarily because I know from experience that an IBAN will be gamed: even if DF himself does not do so, someone else will bring it up next time I have any kind of dispute with someone (or even when I comment on an ANI thread about a dispute I'm not even involved in -- this literally happened, even though the IBAN in question was also "no fault", but I don't want to provide the link because BEANS). Combined with the fact that IBANs are generally associated with hounding, and DF has been repeatedly accusing me of hounding him (despite the actual definition of hounding), this would not be a good look -- even if it's not me, someone needs to address DF's problematic editing, but he will just be able to point to the IBAN that was put in place the last time someone hounded him. Why can't someone just tell DF that the next time he question's another user's mental health or similar he will be blocked? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Since my nuancing my !vote to "conditional neutral, otherwise oppose" has been split, I'm going to clarify here, directly below my original !vote, that as long as I am not placed under a formal or de facto one-way PBAN on ARS, I have no problem with this proposal. My initial reservations were entirely based on the problem that for the general community "IBAN" means "hounding" and that this could easily be gamed; assuming the "no fault" is clearly placed in the close and the consequent WP:RESTRICT entry, I have no problem with this, but I don't want to directly "support" because both me and DF supporting could lead to a premature close that would dismiss the concerns expressed by the other "oppose"s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone could use a search engine to search Wikipedia for your name and "IBAN" if they actually cared. You also admitted elsewhere in a previous discussion you had been topic banned before, anyone can search for "TBAN" if they thought it relevant. I don't see how that matters. While some petty obsessed editors may look through someone's contributions just to find minor things that happened years in the past, just to bring those up to try to sway people to their side, and constantly try to paint a negative picture of them, most people hopefully have enough sense to ignore them. Dream Focus 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that I think DF has been hounding me as much as he thinks I've been hounding him. My edit rate has fluctuated according to real-world circumstances like either job-hunting taking up all my time or a need to distract myself from job-hunting not going well by editing Wikipedia (emailed the closer of the Puzzle Puppers AFD about this some weeks back) and on-wiki stuff like Asian Month and being burned out after Asian Month, and otherwise remained fairly consistent, while DF's edit rate skyrocketed when he started interacting with me (he hadn't made more than 100 edits in a calendar month between September 2015 and February 2018, but since February 2018 has not gone a calendar month without making more than 100 edits, and disregarding calendar months the month-long period during which he was least active was the month I was largely ignoring him, before I made the mistake of PRODding a copyvio nonsense substub he had pointedly created as a POV-fork of an article I had been working on, at which point it jumped back up again), and even though he's a "card-carrying" ARS member (as opposed to my "observer" status) virtually all his edits there in the last four months have been responses to me. This is why I'm most concerned about the proposed "no fault" IBAN: DF has made it pretty clear that he believes my continuing to comment on ARS will constitute a violation of such a ban, as he has been saying for months that I'm only there to harass him, and so will probably try to paint the next time that happens as such even if he violates the ban by responding to me. This is really my only concern with the proposal, which I would supportchange my !vote to neutral in a heartbeat if I thought it would actually stop DF's harassment of me rather than aggravating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not hounding you because I have more edits when you argue with me, there just more post I have to make. If you weren't around to do that, most of the post in the AFDs and elsewhere I make wouldn't happen. Hounding means following someone around, checking their contributions to pick apart everything they do and call them out every chance you get. Unlike you I have never done that to anyone. Dream Focus 23:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) Per Hijiri88 and Dream Focus, above, noting that questioning someones mental health is a personal attack, IMHO. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support two-way interaction ban. The combative wikilawyering by both parties indicates that long blocks may well be coming their way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  How exactly would it work when almost all interactions are in the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue list and its talk page, and the AFDs on the Rescue List? Would he be able to complain I used all capital letters when I wrote the outcome of an AFD was KEEP? Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Learning_by_teaching Or when he argues that there should be a rule against that and other things he doesn't like such as he did at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Listing_"results"_on_the_rescue_list_creating_a_false_impression_of_more_articles_being_rescued_than_not? would I not be able to respond? Since he has no interest in that project, and says he wants it gone, I don't see why he is allowed to follow it around and insult it nonstop and argue with everyone relentlessly. Dream Focus 20:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  For the sake of all that is good and right, stop with the repetitive wikilawyering, and let other editors wade through the repetitive walls of text that the two of you constantly spew. Let others comment. Every additional comment of yours makes you look worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  I want to clarify what this ban would be, if it would actually mean anything. If he can still do that then it is rather meaningless. After I posted I realized I had asked the other administrator the same thing. Knew it seemed familiar. Dream Focus 20:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  See WP:IBAN for the conditions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'd like to see him topic banned from the ARS Wikiproject as well, but just to get him to stop talking trash about me and irritating me with walls of text everywhere I go would be great. Dream Focus 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support IBAN. Not surprised to see ARS and Dream Focus back on ANI. I thought ARS' silly extremist behaviors got toned down years ago. I see they're back. I oppose Dream Focus' proposed topic ban on Hijiri88 from ARS. ARS needs more dissenters on their talk pages and less of an echo chamber.--v/r - TP 21:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC) In response to the comments below, I am also supportive of just a block on DF until he's willing to work collegiality with other editors no matter whether he agrees with them or not.--v/r - TP 16:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@TParis: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the proposal you are supporting is supported by DF, apparently as a way to avoid facing the one-way sanction that should be coming his way, while I've opposed it; you seem to agree that my "disruptive behaviour" at ARS has not actually been disruptive, so placing a sanction on me, even a "no fault" one, that I have opposed seems questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Experience tells me that one way bans are ineffective. And there is no such thing as a "no fault" two way ban. It's symbolic at best to ease DF's feelings.--v/r - TP 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as splitting the blame between victim and the violator in the personal attacks about mental illness. Sometimes, because blocks are preventive and not punitive, the need for a block is missed when the offense occurs, and then what is needed is a warning that the next offense will result in a longer block. Start off by warning Dream Focus that any mental illness comments will result in a one-week block, and do it. No need to split the blame until we have tried a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - while I have some reservations about iBans in general, I'm of the mind that the better of available options is a 2-way. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment With two exceptions (Cullen and Atsme), all of the above "supports" seem to note that the disruption is one-sided on DF's part, and yet they are supporting a solution that lets DF off the hook for his disruption and that DF has supported, and which sanctions me while I've opposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m with TParis, and I am certainly not faulting you for anything and it’s no fault because I am sympathetic to your position. I do think that you and Dream Focus just always clash heads and as Cullen noted, anytime the two of you get together it tends to result in walls of text and fighting. Dream Focus’ actions towards you are wrong, but I also think it’d be best for both you and the community if you didn’t interact with him. Basically the two of you interacting isn’t good and even though his conduct has been worse than yours, I think making it two-way will be easier and better in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: If I can be guaranteed that a closer will explicitly state that I am allowed continue posting related to ARS, and to AFDs related to it, that I did not "follow" DF there, and that if DF makes any more responses to my activities there like he has been DF's actions and not my own will be considered to be in violation, then I will change to supportneutral. The problem, though, is that we've got one uninvolved editor having apparently only reviewed the second-to-most-recent incident placing equal blame (and an equal threat of a block) on both of us, and one other citing some unspecified comments by both DF and myself in favour of this IBAN (implying they consider something DF has said in this thread, perhaps the "hounding" claims as they would be the most relevant to an IBAN proposal, to be valid). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure, but I think on balance I oppose because this was a WP:NPA violation by one party and a unilateral sanction (warning or restriction) would seem more equitable. That said, Hijiri88, is definitely a "frequent flyer" here. The point above notes that the source of conflict is the Article Rescue Squadron. I could easily be persuaded that topic-banning both from ARS would be a net gain. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Actually, in the last six months I've basically been "involved" (as opposed to my just commenting on threads on issues I first became aware of after they were brought to ANI, and those have actually been relatively few of late) in four ANI threads, all of which were large blowouts, but of the four two (the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion and the C. W. Gilmore discussion) were me opening discussions on larger community problems in which I was really a bit player, one (the Huggums537 discussion) involved me having been hounded for some time but doing all I could to avoid bringing it to ANI (the thread was actually opened by Tony, against my wishes), and the fourth is this one. The "frequent flyer" stuff mostly dates to 2015 and earlier -- yes, in 2016-2017 I did make hundreds of ANI posts, but they were almost all "uninvolved". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fuck it. Not worth it. JzG is one of the good guys -- no pun intended -- and actually one of only two editors so far to fully agree with me on this matter. And, FWIW, probably also right that the project (English Wikipedia) would benefit from me spending less time on ARS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. In effect, there is really no such thing as a "no fault IBAN". Dream Focus has clearly violated WP:NPA. Sanctioning the victim of such attacks would be wrong. Paul August ☎ 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment): per Paul August. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 00:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If there is no consensus for a two-way interaction ban, then so be it. But I expect that we will then be discussing the misbehavior of these two editors again, probably soon. I hope that I am wrong. I agree that the mental health comments by Dream Focus were egregious. I gave that editor a strong warning about that issue, which they removed from their talk page, which is their right. However, Hijiri88 is far from blameless here. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers, where Hijiri88 argued that it was somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game. There are countless reasons that article topics might come to an editor's attention, and no policy or guideline says that an editor cannot write an article about a notable topic when a family member is a fan. Hijiri88 then went way off topic in that discussion, criticizing Dream Focus for a variety of things utterly unrelated to to the article being debated. Consensus to keep the article was strong despite Hijiri88's inappropriate advocacy for deletion. I appreciate that Hijiri88 has apologized above for that conduct. But this dispute was a two way street and I do not believe that Hijiri88 is a blameless victim in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that that is certainly not the only AFD he has done that to me at. Also he has been insulting the ARS in AFDs since the beginning, as seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, he bringing up unrelated things there and refusing to stay on the topic. I could easily find many other examples if necessary. If he could be made to just stay on topic and not insult the work of other editors, I think a lot of conflict could be avoided. Dream Focus 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: FWIW, I have already apologized for everything beyond my initial !vote, and said initial !vote was not meant to imply that it was "somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game"; it was meant to point out that DF's article creation is clumsy and disruptive in general, as can be seen by this and a bunch of other stuff I noticed while looking for copyvio. Several of them he leaves in the mainspace with scarcely two sentences of running prose, sometimes lifted word-for-word from other sources or containing really blatant errors, sometimes both. This seemed relevant because, at the time I wrote it, the article under discussion similarly consisted of nothing but an unsourced description of the gameplay and a single sentence that grossly misrepresented the mixed reviews in two gaming webzines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dream focus is a special valuable Wikipedian and we need all types, getting on. If you do not have a mental illness, say so simply and once. Dream Focus, stop it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment): Honestly this is a rather unsuccessful discussion due to the constant interjecting of the two parties who are supposed to be having their actions judged. DreamFocus is constantly repeating the same point of ARS needing protection from Hijiji, while Hijiri is constantly trying to apologize for their past actions while also blaming DreamFocus for being completely unreasonable. I agree fully with Cullen, both people involved with this have done their fair share of causing issues, most often when they confront each other, which results in going extremely off topic and disrupting discussions. An IBAN would hopefully fix this and stop the editors here from aggravating the situation, and if it is not enough in the future more severe actions should be taken. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I am a skeptic of the cost-benefit utility of IBANs under ideal conditions conditions (some of the same disputes that Hijiri references above helped cement this opinion, although I started to form it many years ago), and in this case in particular I feel that the likelihood the sanction will only create more work for the community is high. In the present case, though I have not looked deeply into the older underlying conflicts, I am not impressed with the conduct of either editor from just what is on display (and linked) here. DreamFocus clearly crossed a line into the unacceptably incivil with some of those comments, and should probably face a short-term sanction if they cannot recognize the matter, try to make amends and assure us that it is not likely to happen again. On the other hand, I think a lot of us on this board are familiar with Hijiri's propensity for claiming conspiracies and hounding against them (which seems to be what DF was getting at, however inappropriately) and for leaping towards aggressive accusations when their conduct is questioned. More to the point of considering the value of an IBAN here, Hijiri can be a little...let's be diplomatic and say liberal in their prosecution of IBANs (of which they have had more than any other user in the history of the project) once said sanctions are established; if there is even incidental cross-activity of these two in shared editorial areas, I feel it is inevitable that this matter will be back here in a matter of months or weeks. That is the reason that I opposed Hijiri's last two IBANs with other editors (well, to be fair, I oppose about 90% of IBANs in recent years), and sure enough, that is what happened. In fact, over the last four or five years, the community has spent more time on discussions regarding Hijiri's IBANs (which discussions number more than a dozen, none of them short) than those of the next two or three contenders combined, I have to imagine. That is not good return on a sanction.

I do want to note, in the spirit of fairness and clarity, that while some of my comments above are clearly critical of Hijiri's approach to these matters in the past (by way of explaining my strong objection to the proposed "solution"), I have observed a more measured approach in their conduct here on this board and elsewhere on this project more recently, so I think putting them in a position to face their biggest bugbear (an editor they are locked in a mutual IBAN with) is not conductive to continuing that trend and keeping them focused on the content areas where they are most productive. Would I have brought this issue to ANI if in Hijiri's place? Probably not. Do I suspect that this battle of wills is far from one-sided and that Hijiri has put more than his fair share into forming the mutual antagonism? Yes, my observations of them on the project in the past suggest that is probably so. But suspicions cannot sustain a sanction and DreamFocus has failed to present sufficient evidence of behaviour that is as explicitly out-of-touch with behavioural policies as their (DreamFocus') own. Meanwhile Hijiri has provided numerous diffs with regard to DreamFocus' conduct, some of which flies well past acceptable behaviour. So I'd support a short term block against DreamFocus instead, if they cannot make a rapid turn around and make it plain that they understand where they departed from acceptable standards in responding to what they perceived to be harassment from Hijiri. That can be a lesson to them: when you feel someone is acting irrationally or disruptively, there are ways to say that without engaging in PA's alleging mental illness or basic character faults, neither of which is necessary or helpful. Failing further evidence, I do not support a block against Hijiri, and I strongly oppose a mutual IBAN for the reasons described above.

Further, if an IBAN is instituted, I think it would be a monumental problem to describe it as "no fault"; IBANs by their nature are not meant to ascribe (or for that matter, deny) fault, but are the option we reach for when we hope (usually wrong-headedly, in my opinion) that merely telling the parties they are to stay away from one-another will resolve the tensions; if we had a community finding of fault, it would make more sense to censure the party that was uncontroversially out of line. So trying to create some sort of dichotomy without broader community input on if this is a good idea just does not fly for me. In fact, I'm fairly certain such an approach would take the project's arguably most flawed dispute resolution tool and make it even more prone to another subjective layer of analysis, which in turn will only increase the likelihood that it is counter-effective at resolving the underlying issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please link to which comments I made you believe are a problem, and please tell me you read the entire conversation in context. I never said he had "mental illness". I just now looked it up and the expression "out of your mind" apparently means crazy, so I regret that expression being used. As for the first one he listed: "of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan", because of the long drawn out argument at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion, they claiming it not a concept and they knew more than the former Prime Minister of Japan, a noble prize winner, and all the reliable sources that were found saying otherwise. So no idea how that would bother anyone. Dream Focus 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You're laying out the context for exactly why it was a personal dig and you don't understand why it was received as provocative? Anyway, in answer to your question, I found the "questionable mental state" comment to be the most express violation of WP:NPA, but there's a general theme of needless antagonism in a number of the diffs provided. Even when you personally are convinced that another editor is acting irrationally, there are ways to comment on actions or behaviours that are appropriate to this project and others that are not. And finding the line is not a difficult job; if you ever find yourself commenting upon your theory of their mental state or characteristics as an individual generally, you're well outside policy and anything relevant to a discussion on this project. Where another editor's actions violate a behavioural policy or they become WP:Disruptive in some fashion, you can raise those issue with the community, but only in those terms. Whatever features of personal character you believe you perceive underlying the user's conduct is never acceptable topic matter for a discussion on this project, and open speculation about another editor's mental faculties is, quite clearly, well into prohibited conduct. Now, I don't think the "out of your mind" comment qualifies (that idiom is generally received as "you have got to be kidding me"), but I don't understand how you can think "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this." would be acceptable. You really are not doing yourself any favours by not owning up to this, because if you can't demonstrate that you see where you went off the rails here and convince the community that you can respond to perceived errors in the conduct or reasoning of other editors (even those you really don't care for and think are harassing/manipulative/whatever) without resorting to personalized sarcastic digs and calling your opposition deranged, I think you're going to find there are a lot of us who are going to be expressing concerns about whether you understand WP:C/WP:PA well enough to collaborate without issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But in response to the "out of your mind" bit, he said "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" and so playing on those words I said "As for your questionable mental state,". That's why I was wondering if people just took that out of context or actually read everything in that conversation. Dream Focus 11:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actual dialog in full, no selective editing, just relevant comments in question bolded. I never seriously questioned his mental state.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC) You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see the point you are trying to make, but at the very least you chose to add the modifier "questionable" before "mental state", which only gave vitality to Hijiri's accusation (which I would have previously judged as hyperbolic) that your previous comments were directed at questioning his mental stability. And then in the same beat, you invited other users to join in such speculation as to whether he is delusional/paranoid, at which point you should have felt that particular breeze that comes when one is sailing off the rails. If you think another editor's accusations and comments diverge from the reality of a situation, there are ways to say that without resorting to commentary/speculation about the other party's mind and what defects you believe you perceive in it. That is true even where you may feel gobsmacked by the chasm between what you believe to be the truth and what the other contributor is saying. That is the distinction I think you need to take on board here, and where you ran into trouble in this situation. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I never once said he was paranoid and I don't see anywhere I called him delusional. I said "And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality?" Dream Focus 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire thing in context. Only change is bold added to two things to show my response was using his words to respond to what he said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After he erased someone's post and got reverted [35] @GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC) And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC) So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC) You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

of course [you think] everyone is secretly out to get you[36] obviously means "you are paranoid". The only alternative reading is that you weren't being sarcastic, "you think" isn't actually what you meant, and what you actually meant was "Everyone including me is actually out to get you", which would be even worse. And "paranoid" is basically synonymous with "holding delusions about people being out to get you" (read: delusional). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you really do read a lot into things. I say one thing and you then twist it around to make it sound so much worse. Dream Focus 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point, and after doing it so many times it is beginning to look like you are doing so deliberately for the specific purpose of filibustering this discussion with nonsense side-tracking. The "assume good faith" reading is that you were calling me paranoid: the much worse alternative reading is one I don't hold to. If there is a third reading that I am somehow missing, you should elaborate on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you paranoid. Is English not your first language? You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY but refuse to state what that point could possible be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, then nominating it for deletion despite it passing the general notability guidelines. While the AFD was still open you posted on your friend's talk page [37] asking if he thought I was going to somehow put content from another article in there, which makes no sense at all, then decided "It now looks more like he's just trolling us by pretending like he walked away from the original dispute because everyone but him was behaving poorly". I walked away from the Mottainai talk page discussion, and then ignored it, since you were being rather unpleasant and there was no point in arguing nonstop with you. I found references to a notable book while looking up information there, so I made an article for it, just like other book articles I made at times. It was not pointy, or trolling you, you need to start assuming good faith and stop twisting things around. Dream Focus 06:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, regardless of what additional action might be called for against one or both individuals. Deb (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose IBAN but Support block for DreamFocus. Doing even the simplest of research shows that this has been a problem in the making for nearly 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Dream_Focus_%282nd_nomination%29 I don't honestly give a shit how you feel about this Dream, there was a point at which you needed to shut up, and we are well beyond that point. --Tarage (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, partly per Tarage. An IBAN would completely ignore the root of the problem, wouldn't solve a thing, and often creates problems down the road—for example, the IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri led to JC constantly gnawing at the edges of the IBAN, and thus constant returns to ANI until someone grew a pair and finally dealt with JC. Don't pass the buck this time, ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Watching the back and forth between these two in this thread illustrates why this is needed regardless of who is more at fault in this particular instance. I would also support a week long block based on NPA for Dream Focus because the repeated mental heath jibes should be discouraged by more than a 'Bad. Do not do that again.' response. Jbh ^Talk 22:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: only one party has been calling mental comptenncy of an editor in question; a two-way sanction would be inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: this is a problem between two peopleIBAN is the obvious solution: even if one is more aggressive than the other. This is in the best interest of the Project. – Lionel^(talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So ... the editor responsible for this debacle disagrees with User:Tarage and wants to see me subject to a sanction: colour me surprised ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Sanction against Dream Focus for egregious and repeated personal attacks

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and egregiously violated WP:NPA. Dream Focus is to be strongly reprimanded for such attacks and warned that any future personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Support as proposer. At a minimum some such sanction against Dream Focus is needed, regardless of any other sanctions which may be thought desirable. Their behavior, in this regard, is nothing short of reprehensible, such attacks should not be tolerated. There needs to be consequences. While I'm not a big fan of blocks for such things, we need, as a project, to voice our strong and collective disapproval for such behavior. Paul August ☎ 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal is for a censure, not necessarily for a block. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Like TParis above, I would also support a block of Dream Focus for NPA if there was consensus for that. I try to go with less restrictive sanctions first, but I agree the attack was particularly egregious, and blocking the would also solve the problem an IBAN would. I still support a no fault 2-way IBAN if there isn't a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Per WP:NPA "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." As several have suggested above, there's two sides to this. Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt, regardless of the likelyhood that Hijiri had good faith reasons. That said, of course it was wrong to make negative suggestions about another users mental state. Im not sure a formal IBAN is needed but it would be good if they both try to disengage , at least for a while. Maybe any bad blood will fade away if they don't interact much for a year or so, and later they'll be fine collaborating with each other. Let's not demotivate a very valued editor with unnecessary sanctions. Dream has already been warned by Cullen that any further speculation about another editor's mental health will result in a block. IMO, no further action needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting a block here, see above. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt" - Yes, that's the point and why a block is an option here. This perspective of Dream Focus' is the result of his mentality, which we call a battlefield mentality. A block prevents him from editing until it is changed.--v/r - TP 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Feyd is apparently an old friend DF's (!voted keep in the MFD Tarage linked above), has done nothing on Wikipedia in the last week apart from defend his old friends on admin noticeboards, and explicitly referred to this phenomenon in this edit summary. Obviously DF's "friends" are just as free to comment here as his "enemies", but it is difficult to take as a good-faith coincidence that an old friend of DF's just happens to have examined all the evidence presented and it agreed with what he already wanted to say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning this? Should I post a note after Curly "JFC" Turkey's comment that you two are friends in real life? FeydHuxtable's arguments are not invalid because they agreed with me in the past over something. Dream Focus 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

CT and I are not friends in real life; I don't know his real name, age or profession. He and I just both know Japan and both know Wikipedia policy, so we tend to agree on clear-policy Japan-related stuff on-wiki. And it's not like he doesn't have his own history with you; even if he had just showed up and supported me (he didn't...), it couldn't be explained simply by his being my friend. Feyd's comment, on the other hand, looks like he came here with the intention of defending you regardless of what the actual evidence said, saw that another editor had made some vaguely pro-DF-looking comments, and decided to cite them as though they had actually said you were without fault and should not even be reprimanded. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri's obviously working in bad faith here—as my user page clearly states, "Curly Turkey" is my real name. I would thus support a punitive block against Hijiri for being such a lying dick and an indefinite TBAN for him from child pornography-related articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose anything stronger than a warning at this juncture. I do not believe any formal sanctions would be appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support See my above comment. This is not new behavior. This has been going on for 10 years. --Tarage (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support any kind of sanction the community can agree upon. Honestly I think nothing short of an indef block or at least a TBAN on AFDs and perhaps article creation will solve this problem at this point, per all the non-NPA-related disruption. That said, as I also said above, I don't necessarily expect more than a short block to come from this thread, and would be satisfied with him merely being put on probation for his attacks against me. Ideally, more eyes on his behaviour would also be appreciated, so I don't have to do all the heavy lifting and put up with the "hounding" accusations alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (trimmed 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC))

  You just admitted earlier today that you were following my contributions! [38] You just admitted you went there with a tool, poured through my contributions, hoping to find something. This is WP:HOUNDING! An administrator told you to stop doing that, then when I had to go back and ask for clarification he told you not to follow my contributions for that purpose.[39]

  Can you please clarify your instructions and just tell him to stop following my contributions please? Dream Focus 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  If he notices plagiarism naturally, then he should point it out, but he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  Does everyone see the problem here? He is wantonly violating the rules then trying to act like something else is going on. Dream Focus 23:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "went there with a tool" is supposed to be some kind of sexual innuendo; I used a tool to find your most-edited article, but I checked the content of your edits, and made my edit, manually. And, as I have told you multiple times, hounding involves the intention to cause distress: in this case, I was forced by circumstance to gather as much evidence of plagiarism on your part, in as short a time, as possible. I was disappointed by the results on that particular page, since your contributions to your most-edited article are mostly minor gnomish edits or edit-warring over inconsequential stuff: you can't plagiarize text when you don't add any text. But checking the contribs of a known plagiarist for plagiarism is perfectly acceptable, especially when you know in advance that you are about to be accused of hounding on ANI and need evidence you were acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia from plagiarized text. I only started checking your contribs after you edit-warred to reinsert plagiarized text, arguing that it was not plagiarism;[40] this was a pretty clear admission on your part that you didn't understand our text copyright policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What the hell? Used a Wikipedia tool to seek out my contributions... I think I was clear enough. And no matter how many times you say it, I have never plagiarized anything. If I failed to paraphrase things well enough here and there, minor changes are made, and they were always minor, then that's not plagiarizing. Dream Focus 08:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I believe I can support some sort of sanction for this, up to and including a block for simply grievous personal attacks. However, my first instinct would still be something more resembling a one-way interaction ban. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support--Some kind of sanction, which might be a censure, at very minimum.∯WBG^converse 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As noted above, I recommend a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week. (There should have already been a one-day block and a three-day block, but blocks are not punitive and cannot be given out after the fact.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. What's mainly needed now is to shut this drama-fest down and so give everyone a chance to go away and do something else. I doubt that anyone will be keen to repeat the experience. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that Andrew Davidson is not an uninvolved observer in this matter; his hands are not clean of the disruption on Talk:Mottainai,[41] and he waited until after both DF and I had commented on the unfortunately coincident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD before returning the favour DF had paid him. Citing BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in opposition to blocking someone for continued personal attacks even after multiple editors have warned them would be bad enough, but Paul's proposal to place them on probation is completely unrelated to BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. (This kind of non sequitur argument is, ironically, precisely what Andrew has been doing at AFD that myself and others find so bothersome: he frequently cites BROADCONCEPT in a manner that seems to endorse WP:SYNTH, BEFORE's requirement to do a source check for notability in AFDs that have nothing to do with notability, etc.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comment in the above section. Jbh ^Talk 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support some sort of community sanction for the personal attacks that precepitated this filing. Agree with an earlier expressed opinion re: a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week, or something like this. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• It seems that there has been stalking behavior on the other side[42], so I will have to oppose one-way sanctions at this point.Worldlywise (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is getting more and more suspicious: the above account is fairly new (less than 400 edit) and this is their first time ever posting outside the article space and their own user talk page.[43][44] They've no history of even editing the same articles as me or DF, and they're not a foreign Wikipedian who is just starting out on en.wiki.[45] @Worldlywise: Would you mind explaining how you came across this discussion, let alone how you knew about the side-stuff happening in DF's userspace? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they actually clicked on one of the links I posted here that lead them there. Dream Focus 07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Point taken; now let's try to answer the main question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

[46] Number of page watchers 7,409, Number of page watchers who visited recent edits 1,328. [47] shows that over three thousand people saw this page yesterday, and over three thousand the day before. Dream Focus 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just adding my point of view. I checked the recent contributions of those editors involved.Worldlywise (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Worldlywise: How did you even find this discussion, though? My question was not what motivated you to chime in once you found it, but how you could have noticed this discussion in the first place entirely by accident. It's theoretically possible that you are a new user who enjoys reading the drahma boards, and this just happens to be the first time you ever chimed in, but you are literally the only editor without a prior history of involvement with me or DF to express that point of view, and your !vote seems to be based on an understanding that just because DF feels he is being hounded that justifies his behaviour, which is counter to both the the WP:HARASS and WP:AGF policies, and this makes it likely a closer will weigh your !vote accordingly.

That the "DF believes he is being hounded" argument doesn't work is especially true here, as I've already presented three good-faith justifications for examining DF's contribs over an extended period (in the immediate leadup to, and during, this ANI discussion not only I but everyone is justified in checking his contribs, as you just admitted to doing): he has a history of plagiarizing text, he has a history of adding bad articles to the mainspace, and he has a tendency, at least recently, to cast bogus !votes in deletion discussions. The only evidence DF has presented that I was hounding him was that I checked his contribs.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you keep this in one area? Repeating your same nonsense in multiple places is ridiculous. I don't want to have to repeat my response time and again. There is too much text already in this, no one going to bother to read it all. Dream Focus 02:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Allowing this ANI thread to continue is like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. The best thing to do would be for everyone to forget the whole thing. James500 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And another editor who likes DF and apparently doesn't like me (though I have no idea why) shows up and just happens to !vote in a manner that agrees with the view they already held, and indicates they have read neither the evidence, nor the specific proposal on which they are !voting, as they have not realized that Andrew's "You can't put someone on probation because this policy says you can't use blocking punitively, even when the problem is ongoing". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: taking all issues into account, IBAN is a much preferable option that sanctions. – Lionel^(talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Second verse same as the first.[48] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration

Arbitration is for user conduct issues the community can't fix. The long-term spat between Hijiri88 and DreamFocus appears to fit that bill exactly. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess? Like I said, I'm seeing more bullshit from DreamFocus than I am from Hijiri, but if you wanna go for it, I won't oppose. --Tarage (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure that it would be the correct forum (I have faith that the community can hammer something out), but I won't oppose, either. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's probably better than here, in that arbs have near-infinite patience with the endless "and another thing..." that we get every time this raises its head here. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The spat isn't that long term: it started four months ago, had a hiatus, and has been "active" for about two of those four months, and I brought it to the community's attention for the first time less than two days ago. There are two proposals, the newer of which has been opposed by one of the two whose earlier comments indicated they might oppose it and one other old friend of DF's (see the 2010 MFD Tarage linked), and is still supported explicitly by more editors. This does not count the multiple others who said earlier that they would support something along those lines, who in turn account for everyone who has opposed Tony's earlier proposal. How is this something "the community can't fix? Furthermore, the problem is not limited to user conduct: ArbCom would, AFAIK, not accept all the relevant evidence about DF's copyvio, addition of unverifiable and inaccurate content, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I mostly agree with Guy. This won't be the first time that User:Hijiri88 has been dragged to ArbCom over a conflict with another editor. In that case, the other editor has since been site-banned. In this case, User:Dream Focus is taunting and attacking Hijiri88. Maybe the deliberative process of the ArbCom is needed to determine what there is about Hijiri88 so that he is a magnet for hostile editors. It may be appropriate for the community to recommend that ArbCom consider the conflict between these editors and the long-term editing patterns of these editors (and possibly any others). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  He is just good at taking things out of context knowing most won't bother to click a single link and read the entire conversation. Also he feels the need to insult other editors, make crazy accusations all the time, and follow the contributions of others in violation of WP:hounding even when told by an administrator to stop that, and then again told a second time to clarify it. [49] Can you search for his name and how many times "hounding" has been mentioned on a talk page with him? [50] He seems to always have one person he follows around. Dream Focus 19:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Hijiri88's accusations "crazy" is not helping your case here. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been holding back on saying it, but now that Robert has mentioned the elephant in the room -- ArbCom already cleared me the last time I was subject to bogus hounding claims; in the evidence and workshop phases, words beginning with "hound-" were used 15 9 (I checked on a computer when writing this comment and counted 15, but when I penned the more detailed breakdown below on an iPad I got a different figure; it's possible that I did a more thorough check in the wiki markup for stuff like [[WP:HOUND|stalking]] or something -- I don't remember -- but it's also possible I just completely fucked up, in which case I apologize)times, all accusations against me, but in the final decision the "hounding" principal was carefully worded so as to say "No, that wasn't hounding; stop calling it that". It is only "hounding" when the intention is to cause distress, and in the 2015 case I was the one being hounded, while the multiple editors who claimed I was hounding them all had serious editing issues that justified monitoring their edits; all of them have since left the project. I am confident that ArbCom, given their history of addressing "mentality"-type personal attacks, would take my side in this matter, and probably subject DF to no less than a site ban; the reason I don't want that is simply because it would be a waste of my time at this point, because the community can deal with this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC) (edited 00:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

But see, Hijiri, that recounting is kind of indicative of one of the reasons I think Robert may be correct here. You have a way of recollecting past community concerns regarding your (quite plentiful) community disputes in such a manner that always vindicates your behaviour, even if that was not the actual outcome of those discussions. ArbCom actually censured you in that case and one of their enumerated findings of fact in the case was "Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior."[51]. The committee not using the term "harassment" in the briefly worded outcome statement is not the same thing as them affirmatively stating that you never harassed anyone; that's a positive assertion which you have stamped onto the absence of a statement and which I don't see any kind of corroborative evidence for anywhere in the Committee's ruling. And the fact that you read it that way is indicative of a certain troubling degree of confirmation bias that is common to your outlook when you get into these personal disputes. Now, having seen your engagements here for a few years now, I don't believe these assertions arise from a conscious effort to mislead, so much as a genuine propensity for seeing community support for your interpretation of events more often (or to a much greater degree) than such support has actually been asserted. Mind you, it is worth mentioning that some of the contributors you have gotten into these battles of wills with clearly were violating behavioural policies no matter how you slice the cake; in the present case, I'm particularly not impressed with DreamFocus regarding their IDHT in response to clear community expression that they crossed a line here, context of your ongoing dispute or no. I've tried to make that clear to them above, but have apparently failed and I think they are going to walk themselves into a block as a result.

But I think Robert is nevertheless right; the frequency with which you get locked into these combative relationships with other editors raises fair questions as to your own patterns of behaviour when these grudge matches form. Once you have been party to the number disputes that you have reached where the community had to step in (including a record number of IBANs and an ArbCom case, to say nothing of the huge number of ANI threads), you need to start realistically reconsidering what in your approach to collaboration and disputes here may be contributing--and being more receptive to interpretations of these escalating conflicts which don't frame you in a 100% positive light from start to finish. Because when you are citing an ArbCom case in which you were censured for aggressive behaviour towards other editors as evidence of the proposition that you do not harass and would never do, you are clearly not hearing the community's concerns. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: I think you would be well advised to pay careful attention to what Snow Rise is trying to tell you here. Paul August ☎ 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise and Paul August: Though to be clear, I don't need to be reminded that ArbCom didn't clear of all guilt regarding edit-warring, personal attacks, threats, etc. That would be stupid -- they TBANned me from almost everything, because of that stuff. I was just talking about "hounding" above. There was other stuff I was accused of besides hounding, and ArbCom did find me guilty of that, a fact I acknowledge. I apologize that my above comment gave the impression that I was denying that; rereading it, I can see how it would give such an impression. Sorry; that was my bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, I certainly take you at your word that you remember the event well enough and that you took lessons to heart. That said, what you stated about the case was that ArbCom "cleared you of hounding" and I see no such finding in the case or expressed even incidentally in discussion by any of the Arbs. That's why I say be careful not to see what you want to see. Or of being to certain in initial perceptions generally. I've shared a fair few discussions with you here over the last few years and I don't doubt that you are very intelligent person who has a lot to offer the project. But I do think you have a way of deciding that others are determined to be your enemy, and that carries with it a risk of self-fulfilling prophecy. And yeah, then there are times for you (as with any of us here for long enough) that you have to deal with a jerk--you know, just a real jerk. But even then I think you could stand to recalibrate a little on what is worth going to the mat over, and what is worth saying in the process. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I don't know if your ban on me posting on your talk page still applies; I honestly would like to put all that bad blood behind us, since, yeah, I was a dick in 2015, and I really appreciate what you've been doing in my more recent interactions with you. But I don't want to poke the bear by violating a ban that has never technically been revoked, so responding here even though it's fairly off-topic.

Mostly off-topic elaboration on why I think ArbCom "cleared me" of the hounding accusations that were made in 2014-2015, although not the other stuff.

I was accused, probably well over a hundred times between when my disputes with CurtisNaito and Catflap08 flared up on the Emperor Jimmu/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Kenji Miyazawa/Kokuchūkai articles respectively in 2014 and when ArbCom posted their final decision in 2015, of hounding a variety of editors, several of whom were parties to the arbitration case. This was basically the root of my dispute with Catflap -- he and his defenders claimed I was hounding him by showing up to articles he edited, while my defenders and I said there were legitimate content concerns with Catflap's edits and keeping them in check was, even if the concerns were in error, a valid, good-faith reason for using the public logs. This carried over onto the ArbCom case itself, with words beginning "hound-" appearing twice on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence and seven times on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop; all nine were references to me allegedly hounding someone else. The final decision, though, mentioned hounding in two places; one related to an IBAN to which I am still stubject, so I won't say anything beyond that it wasn't "Hijiri88 hounded X", and the other a general statement of principle that, when read in the context of the multiple hounding claims during the case, amounts to "No, please don't call that hounding". This comment seems particularly relevant here, but going into detail ... is something I've already done multiple times in this thread.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri, you can feel free to post to my talk page. It was only the peculiarity of that one exchange and the fact that I couldn't see any good coming from it that prompted me to make that request; generally speaking I do not like closing down lines of communication. For what it is worth, I have noticed a substantial change in your on-project dealings over recent time, but I hesitated to say as much to you directly out of concern that it would appear patronizing if out of context. That said, as your substantive comments above seem germane to this discussion, I will reply here:

I do see the point you are driving at, but I still think it's a bit of a reach to say ArbCom "cleared" you of such activity, as a formal matter. Assuming support from silence can lead to undependable conclusions and problematic reliance. And while DGG did take a moment to nuance the meaning of "hounding" (and your assumption that he was speaking to the accusations against you seems reasonable), I think he would have been more explicit if he had wanted to reach an affirmative conclusion on the matter regarding the conduct of particular parties. And even if he had made such an outright statement, he was just one of ten arbs on that case; you'd have needed a majority to be able to fairly say that ArbCom "found" this or that.

But honestly, I think there are more pragmatic ways to approach the current situation than looking to historical conclusions. The fact of the matter is, I haven't seen anywhere in this discussion where DreamFocus has provided convincing evidence that you have hounded them; it's a serious claim (even if asserted in their own defense to explain comments that are needlessly inflammatory) and should be supported with some quantum of evidence in the form of supporting diffs and a reasonable connective argument for why you couldn't have arrived in the same spaces for legitimate editorial purposes. If DF has made such an argument, I have missed it--at the very least, I can say it does not appear in the kind of organized manner in which it would really need to appear to spur a community finding. That's not to say that I consider Robert's observation irrelevant; as a matter of evaluating whether ArbCom was a good venue for this dispute, it was a salient point to raise. And it was in light of your response about the previous case that I felt it was worth commenting. But if it means anything to you, I don't think DF has carried their burden of proof for the claim in the present instance (or even really tried to, for that matter).

Going a step even farther, the matter isn't even one of recent/current conduct so much as how to move forward. There's such a jumble of proposals and responses above that I don't know what a closer can realistically do with it all; I think it's possible we will be faced with a no consensus conclusion with strong warnings. That is not what I would have expected, frankly, but that doesn't mean it won't turn out for the best, given the alternatives. I'm not sure DreamFocus has completely taken to heart the point some of us have tried to emphasize about divorcing conduct complaints from personalized commentary, but I trust that they at least have come to understand that one specific kind of personal assessment (regarding another community member's general state of mind) is a no-go under most any circumstances. Hopefully this process has been sufficiently arduous enough to also influence the mental calculus for you both when it comes to deciding whether it is worth engaging with eachother--formal IBAN or no, and regardless of whether you choose to continue to operate in the same spaces. I don't know who I would find to have started the ball rolling on the distengrating work relationship, had I been observing the interactions from word one, but it does seem to me that neither of you is someone incapable of seeing the value of letting the matter die here. I do, unfortunately, think it could eventually end up at ArbCom otherwise, so there is that food for thought. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to invite Dream to shut the hell up. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

They are not going to; they seem determined to be Hijiri's star witness against themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Speaking as a former Arb, I don't think this has reached last-resort stage ... yet. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not usually one to suggest going to ArbCom but, given DreamFocus's long history of personal attacks, wikilawyering, and trying to taunt people into an outburst, that the community doesn't seem to have ahd the will or ability to address, this might be the only option left. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: If this goes to ArbCom because of Dream Focus's long history of disruption before his interactions with me (which long history, yes, has come before the community before, for example with the multiple MFDs), then can I not be named as a party? I know he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his accusations against me, but I'd really rather not feel the need to defend myself against them anyway. Frankly this ANI thread has been quite enough drahms to last me for a while. I'd be happy to present evidence for an ArbCom case, but I don't want another case with "Hijiri88" in the title, especially if the reason something goes to ArbCom is that I just happened to be the latest in a long line of editors to express a problem with a particular problem editor. I just wanted an admin to tell him that he would be blocked the next time he talked about my mental state. (Of course, an admin did that without closing the thread, and he continued to violate the warning almost immediately.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If User:Hijiri88 asks whether they could avoid being named as a party in an ArbCom case, they clearly are responding to something other than the discussion in this thread. The fact that Hijiri88 would even ask such a question means that they don't understand what the issues are. If there is an ArbCom case, ArbCom will decide how the case is named and who the parties are, but the question by Hijiri88 indicates that they don't understand something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To be clear, my reason for posting the above was that the original suggestion to send this to ArbCom made little sense (this is the first time the dispute between me and DF has come to the community's attention), of the several proposed solutions one has near-unanimous support once one disregards the !votes against a proposal that wasn't made, and the original ArbCom proposal had received little support, while Reyk (talk · contribs) specifically suggested that this could be brought to ArbCom because of DF's historical conflicts with multiple other editors going back years before his first interaction with me, a problem the community has failed to address in the past (the "no consensus" MFD). If I were to be named as a party to such an Arbitration case, it would be as one of the multiple editors who have conflicted with DF: to do otherwise wouldn't make any sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, this in response to Reyk) What the hell? I have never tried to taunt anyone into an outburst. I just say what's on my mind, sometimes without stopping to think. I never said he had a "mental illness", I never used the word "paranoid" or "insane" even once in reference towards him or anyone else. I'm not certain how claiming he thinks people are out to get him, translates into calling someone paranoid. The "out of your mind" comment I do regret making [52], that something I actually said. He then mentioned that comment elsewhere saying "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" and I respond with "As for your questionable mental state," as a play on the words he used.[53] Didn't think anything of it at the time, regret using that wording now as I have explained. If I can't get an interaction ban here, I do support ArbCom since they will look at each thing he claims I said, and then actually read the linked conversation to see what I actually said, and know he is just twisting things around and trying to play the victim. Not sure why some of you can't see that. As for this "long history of personal attacks" you claim, can you show some links to show any of them? In all the AFDs we disagreed on in years past, and there were many, did I ever do any personal attacks? I complain about deletionists, but never called anyone out by name that I can remember. Dream Focus 06:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain how claiming he thinks people are out to get him, translates into calling someone paranoid. You can't be serious ... what do you think "paranoid" means ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Paranoia is a mental condition. Not everyone who thinks something someone does means they are out to get them, or trying to be POINTY, or whatever, suffer from paranoia. Dream Focus 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• There do seem to be sharply divided views here. For example, I couldn't agree less with the suggestion Dream try's to taunt folk into an outburst. In relation to Hijiri - Dream has tried to disengage many times, with Hijiri continuing to post on Dream's talk and initiate arguments elsewhere, despite Admin Tony Ballioni's suggestion that he should avoid Dream's contributions and "shouldn't seek them out." So on the face of it, it's H who has successfully taunted Dream into making the regrettable mental health comments. (This might be harsh on H to be fair, he may have had legitimate reasons. Ideally there would have been more AGF and H would have been treated with the friendliness and collaboration Dream more typically shows other users.)

So there is some justification for an arb case. On the other hand, Arbs are volunteers, and per common practice we ought not to expect them to give up possibly dozens of hours running a case before we've had a good go at a community solution. And there is a solution here that all seem to agree on (even if some want more severe sanctions.) Dream has already been warned by Cullen that any more speculation about a users mental state will result in a block. I don't see a single one of even Dream's friends defending the "mental state" type remarks. Dream has written several times about regret for the out of order remarks, so he seems to accept the censure.

All that's needed IMO is to close this discussion with a note that Dream has been warned and the community has expressed disapproval about the questioning of another users mental state. If Dream the repeats the action, he gets escalating blocks. If H continues editing that can been seen as excessively following Dream about, there can be an IBAN. Only if that all fails is an arb case warranted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Constant accusations of plagiarism

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

---

Hijiri88 refuses to stop insulting me, claiming I am guilty of plagiarism. The discussion I had with an administrator about various things was User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning that was close paraphrasing, not plagiarism. I'd like him to stop throwing the word plagiarism at me every chance he gets, and using that as an excuse to follow my contributions when he was told specifically by an administrator not to even if he thinks there is there is plagiarism.[54] Dream Focus 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You are guilty of plagiarism. Your contribs have, on multiple occasions and by multiple editors, going back at least as far as 2013 and as recently as this March, been tagged, removed and revdelled for plagiarism. You can call it an "insult" if you want, but it is nevertheless true.

As for the inflammatory edit summary claiming I "admitted" to following your edits: I admitted to checking your contribs while filing this ANI report. Yeah, I had followed your edits previously because of the plagiarism, the garbage articles (e.g., you never disclosed in the ongoing Talk:Mottainai discussion that you had created the fork Mottainai Grandma that included several claims you were arguing to include in that article, let alone completely ridiculous claims about it being a "novel", etc., and the only way I could have noticed it was by checking your contribs), and the problematic AFD !votes (where, for example, you linked sources you clearly had not read as they had nothing to do with the topic or advocated deleting the article and putting a completely different article in its place and called it a "keep").

But that's all irrelevant, as I didn't report you on ANI for any of that stuff.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stay on topic please. I would like people to look at the examples provided already, and tell me if they consider it plagiarism or just minor close paraphrasing problems here and there over a considerable period of time. And whether he should be able to bring that up every chance he gets, constantly accusing me of this or not. Dream Focus 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, close paraphrasing is plagiarism, and there is nothing "minor" about it. Only admins can see several of the examples already listed, as they have been revdelled because of the close paraphrasing. Claiming that I have been "bringing it up every chance I get" when I literally didn't bring it up a single time in the last three weeks, except in response to you accusing me of "hounding" you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:close paraphrasing is not WP:plagiarism. Dream Focus 03:58, 20 June 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.

Echogrey derogatory comments

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

---

Echogrey has made one edit. While it was correct to revert the person who keeps uploading other people's art to the fat fetishism page, their edit summary was both homophobic and hateful towards people with certain fetishes. Please delete the edit summary, thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

One edit isn't enough to block somebody on Wikipedia. I recommend that he gets told about the rules for derogatory comments on Wikipedia. —JJB^ers 13:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block, I'm just asking for their edit summary to be deleted. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting indefinite block of User:Crawnax

User disrupted proceedings by blanking content[55][56] and attacking other users.[57][58] Was issued a block on 26 April, but has since persisted with blanking (and simultaneously celebrating the death of a UK politician),[59] abusing other editors[60][61] and WP:OWN antics.[62] The whole thing seems remarkably familiar,[63][64] to be quite honest. 5.71.120.66 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a pattern of disruptive editing to me. Probably worth having a CU check their magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A checkuser does seem relevant here. We have three accounts, all with a strong presence in the pro wrestling section, all with recent blocks on their resumes, and all directing the same insults at users who threaten their WP:OWNership. 5.71.120.66 (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Is this user ringing any bells? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The IP is. I've blocked the IP for one week. I'm unwilling to check the named accounts unless a legitimate editor files a report at SPI with sufficient evidence to justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 and Ad Orientem, I'm not sure if you're the right folks to contact, but User:Crawnax did more vandalism today, deleting most of Joe Manchin's article, so further action might be warranted. - Sdkb (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have posted a final warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:100.43.120.146

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP user is making legal threats on their talkpage while blocked. Can an admin please revoke their talkpage access and perhaps oversight/rev-del the legal threat from public view if it meets those guidelines? Thanks. 126.74.221.240 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Talkpage access revoked for the duration of the 1-month block. Nothing that looks rev-del-worthy to me. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 19 June 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 Temporary block User:GhostOfDanGurney

The following discussion is closed. 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 contacted this user about adding unreliable sources [[65]] This user has responded on my talk page being uncivil and has also broken 3RR Diff [66] Diff [67] Diff [68] While I also reverted it back and tried to explain to this user that SportsKeeda is not a reliable source they kept reverted and adding it back if you check my user talk page you can see our conversation and if you check this user contributions they are trying to report me for something I was trying to correct TheKinkdomMan talk 20:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• A) I was not notified of this.
• B) I added a reliable source after his first revert, and he continued to revert, leading me to file a 3RR report on him here. [69]
• C) I attempted to initiate a civil discussion on his talk page, and was met with him patronizing me and threatening to get me blocked. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This user was notified after my first revert then they kept reverting still adding the unreliable source which I was taking out trying to add the reliable source on multiple occasions but wasn’t able to due to error, out conversation is on my talk page which you can see here [70] TheKinkdomMan talk 20:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please show the Diff of you sending me an ANI notice. Spoiler alert: You didn't. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:48, 19 June 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:36.79.9.227 disruptive edits relating to fractals

The following discussion is closed. 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 has disrupted the articles and talk pages of math related subjects, particularly fractals. Twice this user has inserted what appeared to be an article on the Mandelbrot Set. Obviously the talk page is not where such content goes. He also disruptively edited the article on the Barnsley fern fractal. I feel this IP should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funplussmart (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

He's already been blocked for this before. I blocked him again, this time for three days. I'm not entirely sure what he wants to do. I think he's trying to help, but he's using articles and talk pages as his testing ground, and not communicating with anyone, so that's a problem regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I do remember this IP being blocked before. You could be correct and that this user doesn't know how Wikipedia works. But abusing the talk page the way he/she did seems bad faith to me, and that this user is just a troll. Funplussmart (talk) 03:31, 20 June 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:FastCube

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

---

I've sent FastCube ten messages over the last seven months, but can't get them to communicate, despite pointing out that it's a matter of policy (WP:DISPUTE, WP:CONDUCT). They are repeatedly creating articles with no references or no clear references and have not addressed this despite the messages and me pointing them to WP:V and they have continued to create several more. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

FastCube has finally responded to me at User talk:Boleyn: Yes, I do know that you have sent ten messages of no references, but I see A LOT of football articles with no references and no one does anything about it. I also do actually try to find all the information and include the citations in too.

If you knew I'd sent the messages about references, FastCube, you would also have seen my messages about communication being mandatory and part of our policies. Ignoring them is not acceptable. There are indeed many poor articles that are being worked on - the answer is not to create more. You have not been adding citations to all your creations, hence my many messages about different articles, some of which I sent in Dec '17 and they remain unreferenced. You need to add references to the articles you create and you need to communicate when other editors raise concerns. Can you agree to do that? Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

FastCube has now contacted me on my talk page and said they will communicate in future and add citations. I think this can now be closed. Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 20 June 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.

Niteangelnc & "copyright infringement"

The following discussion is closed. 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 sandwiches short of a picnic

Hi, Niteangelnc seems to reckon File:12 Monkeys Intertitle.png is theres and that "Someone had taken it from her Twitter account" ..... I've replied to them showing them the credits in a YouTube video but ofcourse they've ignored that,
I'm not sure if they're trolling or whether they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic .... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User is blocked. I'm not an expert on FURs, but it's got one and I doubt whichever graphic design company commissioned the title is going to turn up here SHOUTING IN CAPITALS (which is of course, the best way to win an argument, except it isn't). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly!, There whole claim has since been proven to be bs which I think we all knew from the off, Unrelated but thanks for the laugh! :), Hope you're doing well. –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Niteangelnc has been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 20 June 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.

ScottSullivanTV

The following discussion is closed. 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 take a look at ScottSullivanTV's recent edits? His page move from Mad Max 2 to The Road Warrior needs to be reverted, because The Road Warrior was the US title, not the original title in Australia. In addition, all the other Mad Max-related link changes he made need to be reverted. His page move wasn't even performed correctly, as the talk page wasn't moved, and he added a period to the title of The Road Warrior. There is also a CSD on Mad Max 2 that needs to be dealt with. This is a mess and needs to be sorted out, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it back (even the moved name had a . in it). Road Warrior is not the movie's name, just the US title. Canterbury Tail talk 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also reverted their edits on all other Mad Max movie articles since they renamed it all over the place. Additionally I've given them an additional warning to use edit summaries, I noticed I warned them previously about it and they have failed to follow it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. Looking at his talk page, it seems this isn't the fist time he's performed a page move against consensus or logic. He needs a talking to. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:52, 19 June 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 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.

---

As per User:Serial Number 54129 , User:Generalbeeness gave a personal attack in a edit summary on my talk page [[71]] because I requested speedy deletion of his sandbox . Please look ino the matter . Kpgjhpjm 15:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Blocked by BereanHunter. Must have mistaken us for Pornopedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 21 June 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:Fronticla

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

---

Fronticla has been mass-removing certain words and phrases from articles (such as "popular", "icnonic", "award-winning", etc). I reverted a few dozen of the edits, and left a post on their talk page asking for an explanation, on a per-article basis, since many the edits are questionable - while other users have raised similar concerns (User:MrX, User:Asteuartw, User:Onel5969, User:Ben 1979, User:Nightscream, User:TheOldJacobite etc). The attempt with engagement was ignored, Fronticla reverted myself and other editors without discussion, and continues to make mass removals. The previous ANI on this same topic went by without sanctions but this is the third time this has come up. -- GreenC 14:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Fronticla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one can see in any of their edits with an edit summmary containing "WP:PEA", that they are removing adjectives and descriptions that would otherwise not be removed under any of our content guidelines. The editor has refused to engage in any discussion and has edit warred extensively. Considering all of the warnings and attempts at discussion, a block may be in order. Also, I plan to rollback their problematic edits, unless someone can convince me that that is misuse of the rollback tool.- MrX 🖋 14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. He has failed to address concerns for too long.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fronticla desperately needs to communicate more. The issue at the last ANI was a similar, but not quite the same issue. He/she was still mass removing certain words, but the issue JzG and I noticed was removal based on "POV," which involved toning down the wording about deeply problematic medical topics simply because of the existence of a word. When I looked at the time, it seemed like most of the peacock-related edits were an improvement, so as annoying as it was that Fronticla opted not to participate in the previous ANI, since it seemed he/she stopped working on "POV" and focused on PEA at that point, I didn't have much of a problem with it. I do not think there should be a mass rollback of all of these edits, if that's what's being proposed, but that doesn't mean some sanction/block isn't in order pending communication and acknowledgment of problems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 21 June 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.

Joven salvaje

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

---

Kartik Aaryan's page was edit protected for a month due to discrepancy regarding his birthday, when a couple of editors had a talk page discussion. After the protection expired, Joven salvaje went back to changing the birthday without changing the source. When reverted, he posted this abusive message on my talk page. It wasn't his first such message. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been perma-blocked shortly afterwards. —JJB^ers 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

endorse block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:11, 19 June 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.

Somebody else deal with this, I've put up with too much crap today already

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

---

[72] Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Got the revert anyway. Arkon (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for disruption to stop them from continuing tonight. Anyone else is free to extend it as long as they like. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 21 June 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.

/ˈduːʃˌbæɡ/

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

---

Perhaps an NPA warning to User:Kintetsubuffalo for calling me a "douchebag" in IPA in an edit summary -- in response to a perfectly reasonable reversion and request for explanation -- would be in order? [73] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair play, it was a creative insult. Can the old hands please stop ruining my day by interacting like post-GamerGate partisan hacks? Srsly. Kinetsubuffalo should apologise. And you should probably shrug, unless it’s happening a lot. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I used to shrug off the brickbats, but then I learned that if I don't take immediate steps to counter them, I become everyone's favorite pincushion, and I'm no longer willing to allow that, especially when the insult isn't in the heat of an ongoing dispute, but seemed deliberately provocative. I put too much damn time and effort into improving this encyclopedia to be dissed like that and let it pass unnoted. I'd certainly accept an apology from KB, if they are so inclined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Very close to a block. Childish insults tend to results in childish results (i.e. blocking). Kintetsubuffalo, give it a rest please. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I found it funny, but if BMK didn't he's within his rights to tell Kintetsubuffalo to knock it off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As Guy says, it was creative, I certainly acknowledge that, and if a close friend of mine called me a "douchebag" in jest, I, of course, would not be offended, but that's not the situation here. I'm actually not aware that KB and I have any kind of ongoing relationship at all, but then I interact with so many Wikipedians, it's possible it slipped my mind that we are mortal enemies or best friends or something. Besides, it puts me at a disadvantage, as I'm not fluent in IPA and would have to do an annoying amount of research to respond in kind, if I were inclined to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I just happened upon [74] from about a month ago, where Kintetsubuffalo responds to a warning about using "retard" in an edit summary by doubling down on the same insult, so this isn't a new issue. kcowolf (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting. Here in this instance, despite being told by an admin that his comment came close to earning him a block, and others telling him to cut it out, KB deleted the thread about it on his talk page and took the time to provide the edit summary "yawn", [75], so I guess he's not taking it seriously. Given that, I think it would be appropriate for an admin to post a firm warning on KB's talk page that the next such incident will be met by a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Based on this conversation and the obvious evidence, I have given this editor a warning that I hope is sufficiently clear. Please keep me posted about any violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin

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

---

Brief overview - yesterday AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk · contribs) (a user I have never encountered before) posted on my talk page about an AFD for an article he had started. His conduct at the AFD speaks for itself. After I !voted 'delete' and he posted on my talk page again, I asked him to stop harassing editors about the AFD (a quick review of his contributions show him blanket messaging numerous editors about it, and responding/commenting on the AFD in a non-constructive manner). He has responded by accusing me of harassment and threatening legal action. Can an uninvolved admin please review? GiantSnowman 09:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• That user's English is not very good, would they perhaps be using a translation program? 331dot (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  It was good enough to imitate an administrator. I think that diff rules out a translation program. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for finding that. I would tend to agree with you based on that. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I will be harassed, I will obviously seek some court action against the perpetrator no matter it is Wikipedia's admin. Don't worry, I will soon mail to Jimmy Wales on this issue of warning the accused, I will also write up a public column on an international platform highlighting such misconduct. That may derail accused of his abilities. Please don't harass or be biased. Otherwise, police will find whoever you are and being anonymous will not work. Strictly warning. Please keep your administrative abilities to yourself, in the house of law, your admin power will not work. Even Wikipedia doesn't allow SNOWBALL FIGHT. Other administrators are asked review the fact. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that is certainly a legal threat. I see the user is already blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

yeah, that was not a difficult call. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do people think this sort of thing works? What is the thought process behind someone who threatens to sue Wikipedia over some administrative donnybrook?--WaltCip (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ever since Interpol started their Task Force On Preventing Wikipedia Deletion (or A.C.R.O.N.Y.M., from the French), their jackbooted goons have been dropping in on editors and administrators everywhere and carting them off to WikiJail. Luckily, it's "the jail anyone can edit", so the doors regularly disappear and the inmates just walk off, still dressed in their natty government-issued wikituxes. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

IP 172.76.158.201 / IP 172.76.171.26 has continued to alter comments on Talk:Bird's Opening talk page despite several warnings

The first incident was on 23 May, when 172.76.158.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fixed another editor's typo without asking. I left a note on their Talk page, pointing out that besides being against wikipedia guidelines, it was simply bad manners... and you can see what happened after that. On 18 June, the behaviour was repeated when 172.76.171.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) altered the text of my Talk page comment. The narrow topic range and the behavioral similarities overwhelmingly point to these IP's being the same person. I reverted and told them not to alter my comments again. Not only did they repeat that behaviour, they removed that whole section of the Talk page. I left a warning template plus a few words of my own on their Talk Page. They removed that section again. Clearly this editor is a troll who is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Request an IP range block. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Note - the disruptive talk page behaviour has continued even after the ANI was raised. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Unregistered user attack on Cades Pond culture

• Cades Pond culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 70.52.97.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.29.225.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.159.168.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't plan to bring this here. I had intended to request semi-protection for the article as I have reverted content deletion a couple of times today, but I ended up setting the semi-protection myself. The IP-hopping user has deleted the same content at 1, 2 and 3. I believe this is connected with this edit at History of Florida. I have not reverted at Cades Pond culture, as that would be my third revert today. I am asking for this forum to either approve or remove the semi-protection I put on Cades Pond culture. - Donald Albury 03:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ani-notice placed on three IP talk pages. - Donald Albury 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some links to the head of the report. Since one anon seems to be using multiple IPs in the same war, I agree that semiprotection is justified. Looks like Donald Albury started a thread at the Talk page of History of Florida which might be related to this dispute, and should be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

These reverts make no sense. Third diff: Speculation and analysis from only one source. That's Original Research. You must cite multiple sources for encyclopedic materials Huh? To the contrary, citing multiple sources for the same piece of text is routinely WP:SYNTH, and citing a single source is normal both here and in academia. [And that doesn't even explain why the IP totally removed Late Prehistoric Florida from the references; if citing just it is wrong, why not leave it there for background reading?] The IP's badly misinformed at best, and this semiprotection is easily appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content

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

---

Despite multiple warnings, User:MrNigerian keeps adding unsourced content about the politician Karpal Singh. I have no idea if it is true or not given that it is unsourced, but it looks to be someone trying to say something about the integrity (or a lack of thereof) of the politician, therefore it is likely an attempt to skew the perception of person that could be defamatory. Hzh (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Watching this user and witnessing unyielding and unconstructive changes. Time to push the button. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 17:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, spoke too soon. Moving on then!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 17:30, 21 June 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.

ZSJUSA copy and paste moving

ZSJUSA moved United Kingdom (WWE brand) without explanation and without sources, which I moved back with an explanation as to why, as sources supported the previous name. Rather than addressing the issue, they twice copy and paste moved the page. I wrote on their talk page here [76] about this, as this user has been around long enough they should understand this. Rather than addressing the comments, 12 minutes later the user once again copy and paste moved another page, here [77] [78]. - Galatz^Talk 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have an issue with rarely communicating or using edit summaries. ZSJUSA, communication is required. I think if the editor begins communicating better and/or stops the page moving that no administrative action should be taken, but a short block might be needed if they continue the disruption without communication. Nanophosis (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More wrestling bullshit, if I didn't have enough evidence already... --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Another example of users like Tarage doing nothing to aid building an encyclopedia. What benefit did posting a useless comment like this this serve on any planet? - GalatzTalk 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Perhaps you should see the section above where there is discussion about making discretionary sanctions on these "articles". --Tarage (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC) And then upon viewing your user page and seeing "Professional wrestling pages I created" I understand the problem. I'm sure that your wrestling articles are beneficial for "any planet". --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @Tarage: I notice you ignored all the other pages I have created outside of that section. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't make it not beneficial. More people watch WWE on a weekly basis than most other programming on TV. What makes their performers less worthy of inclusion that others? I have yet to bring forward anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, yet WP:ENT supports inclusion of them. - GalatzTalk 23:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "Beneficial" is an interesting word choice, considering how often the community has to deal with fights over "beneficial" fluff pages about fictional wrestlers. Just because lots of people watch it does not mean it isn't a problematic area of Wikipedia. That's like saying reality TV is the pinnacle of quality entertainment. Again, see the section above, and don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Attack by Tarage

The following discussion is closed. 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:Tarage called me stupid for no reason when reviting my edit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/846968032 71.219.141.37 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone feel free to block this dumbass. --Tarage (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop cursing at me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/846968664 71.219.141.37 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop editing. --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 22 June 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.

Block request for User:TPTB

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

As per Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content conclusion, CSA Steaua București (football) should not display any of their claimed honours or original history of Steaua Bucuresti or the article. FCSB, known as FC Steaua București, is considered by UEFA, Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal, and more than three thirds of the Steaua fans as the real club. Everything is linked on both articles as proof. However, this user removed the content on FCSB's page and proceeded to add the honours on CSA's page again, despite knowing about the RfC. I rollbacked both pages because I considered it vandalism, as per the RfC. I think this guy should be stopped from editing these pages again. We keep undoing his edits and he comes back everytime. It's up to you, but I'm sincerely tired of this. BTW, he will probably accuse me of lying again, but everything is sourced in the articles and the links he provides are only from CSA's members point of viea. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional background - this and this. This is a long-standing dispute regarding identity/history etc. of a Romanian football/soccer club. For what it's worth TPTB is a clear SPA and a disruptive editor (blocked in October 2017 for personal attacks/harassment). A topic ban on Steaua Bucuresti might be useful. GiantSnowman 09:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If all they edit about is a single topic, is a ban from that topic any different from a block? Fish+Karate 09:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Fish and karate, I'm not only editing about FCSB/CSA, I edit about Romanian football in general. I'm not a fan of these teams, I just want the (actual) truth to be displayed. I don't want to see foreigners entering CSA's page and thinking "how does a club founded in 2017 has almost 50 trophies (or whatever the numer is)?"8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Again with the goddam Romanian football. As soon as we're done with pro wrestling, this should be next. EEng 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• TPTB has reported another editor at WP:AIV over this content dispute. I am inclined to block TPTB for disruption.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• To clarify. Has reported 8Dodo8. I'm inclined to block both.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Besides edit warring, which I agree I may be accused of, what did I do wrong? If you read the RfC and all the links provided you'll see I'm telling everything as it is. I'm not a Steaua (FCSB) fan, I'm just trying to improve Romanian football pages as much as I can. And he accuses me of lying. Just read this June 2018 article from LPF, the organization that runs the Romanian League: [79]8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vif12vf (disruptively) working under two names

Editor Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who repeatedly edited on a certain article (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), 10–13 April 2018 but also earlier) under his real user name, started to defend his positions and edits on the connected talk page incognito, under a pseudonym (15 April, as ‘Tiberius Jarsve’). Such behaviour makes any fair debate about controversies impossible and therefore seems disruptive to me: Vif12vf with such goings-about makes it seem as if two people support certain positions of his, while in reality it is one person. Is there any rule against such 'unfair play'? If not: should we not make a rule against it? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now changed my signature, with the new signature being a compromise. As old signatures will not automatically be changed, this signature is a mixture of the old signature and my username. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you change your previous signatures. —JJB^ers 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

South Korea in the Vietnam War/WP:NOTESSAY (last resort)

SUTAINOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed sourced content, adding a personal essay (and not a very good one) instead. I've warned ([80], [81]) the user, but to no avail. I'm not going into 3RR-mode, but the current state of the article is unacceptable. Can I get a few eyes on this, please? Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Un-related userpage vandalism.

@Kleuske: Sorry to comment on an off-topic issue, but you shouldn't really call JBP a "narcisist" on your user page because BLP applies to user pages too. Also please see WP:POLEMIC. You are of course right about the South Korea thing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Pudeo: Please provide a link to me calling anyone a narcisist on any page. Who is JBP, btw? Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Nevermind. The offending statement was added here by User:Dr Nobody. Thanks for pointing that out. It's been removed. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Alright, I thought you had added that. No problem then. --Pudeo (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) I really should keep a closer eye on my userpage, because I missed it completely. Thanks again. Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, after looking through the history, it looks like several users are guilty of this. This might warrant a listing at WP:RPP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IP unsourced editing

I just picked up edits from IP 73.32.84.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at a number of music-related articles. They have a pattern of unsourced, relatively minor edits (changing instruments of band members, order of band members, etc) with no consensus that seems extremely familiar; I'm wondering if someone recognizes them as a longer-term case. If it means anything, the IP comes back to Comcast out of Houston. Home Lander (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like FlightTime is on the case .... if the IPs start warring, give me a yell and I'll see if my banhammer still works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this, Ritchie333 it's your call. :P - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks FlightTime Phone and Ritchie333. If anyone else recognizes this IP as something longer-term, give me a yell. Home Lander (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the edits are vandalism; it just looks like somebody who wants to contribute to WP but doesn't know where's a good place to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Ritchie, it's just unsourced and without consensus. But something rings a bell, just don't know exactly where... Home Lander (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio by User:Manali1005

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

---

The above user has been warned about copy vio twice before but has ignored the warnings. here and here. They have now added this claiming it is their own work. There is also a strong chance that they are engaged in undeclared paid editing their editing as they have declared being a paid editor for Vishal Raj Films but have made no edits connected to this company from what I can see but have created promotional pages Teri Bhabhi Hai Pagle and Qu Play. They have had 4 files deleted on commons for copyright problems and a 5th is tagged for deletion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manali1005. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Some content posted by this editor is recreated from deleted content by User:Milind655. Sock-puppetry and COI for Indian-cinema topics? Someone get my fainting couch. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This may be another one as he seems to have a very similar MO User:Kushalprem and has editied the subject that Manila has declared a COI for Vodka Diaries Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhirenmb.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:07, 21 June 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.

Trolling/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.

---

User:Guy Macon has made very strange comments on Talk:Elon Musk.

• A tangential personal remark, ending with "Don't they have anything better to do with their time?"
• An "apology" for the previous comment. Discussing "normal" and "challenged" people, and a comparison to "parking in a handicap space".

Is this a joke that I am unaware of, or what is the explanation for this? Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"Looks fine the way it is now. I am always amazed at the amount of effort some people put into trying to label famous people as being from their favorite country. Don't they have anything better to do with their time?" is hardly trolling or a personal attack .... Your reply on the otherhand I would consider to be trolling and in all fairness Guy has a point .... If you're genuinely offended by that one reply then I would suggest you log off and find another hobby. –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not create this section after the first comment, it was more so the second one about the "challenged persons" and "handicap space". I also have not said I am offended, not that it particularly matters. In any case, can you explain how my comment is trolling, yet the original personal remark is not? Implying my favorite country is South Africa (it isn't) and then saying my editing is the result of a pro-South Africa bias is not a problem? And again, making comments about "challenged persons" and "handicap space" seems quite inappropriate. Looking at Guy Macon's talk page, someone else has warned him about personal attacks after he made a similar comment in an edit summary a couple weeks ago. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: Please remember to notify the parties of a discussion, I've done it now. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: I did. Guy Macon removed the notification. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: Ah.  Self-trout. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Guy made an off color comment about people wasting time on Wikipedia arguing about something trivial. Something that happens ALL THE TIME HERE. Hrodvarsson took offense to it, and Guy gave Hrodvarsson a perhaps overly snarky remark back due to their offense. And then Hrodvarsson decided that this was horrendous enough to come here to bother all of us with. I'm sorry, Bellezzasolo, I'm gonna have to borrow that trout for these two. There is absolutely nothing actionable here. Guy, tone down the snark please, Hrodvarsson is sensitive to it apparently. Hrodvarsson, get thicker skin or get off the internet. Someone else close this. --Tarage (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "overly snarky" quite covers that second post by Guy. I'm going to repeat it here in full for consideration, because I think it flies past WP:C (a pillar policy, I feel some here with an acid tongue are too prone to forgetting) at such a speed that I don't think it should be quite so readily dismissed as you are inclined too:

"I am sorry. I had not realized that you are a delicate flower who gets triggered by such mild comments. True, being able to survive the rough and tumble of a normal conversation is a rudimentary skill that many of us "normal" people assume everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed you to even the slightest criticism. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you."

I'm sorry, but that's not "snark"; that's outright passive-aggressive, inflammatory and just plain non-collegial, from start to finish. I don't know that I view the idea of a sanction as remotely likely here, but I'm even more certain that Hrodvarsson should not be lambasted for being overly sensitive or hyperbolic for bringing the matter here; that comment was outright hostile and clearly meant to directly (and fairly aggressively) insult another editor. At the very least this thread is worth the while to bring the matter to attention so that we can make it plain that this is brightline inappropriate behaviour. I don't know if there is extra context here that we are not seeing from that one page, or if Guy was having a bad day, but that was uncivil, plain and simple. It's also worth noting that this is the second time in the last couple of weeks that Guy has implied mental retardation/disabilities on the part of a party he is in dispute with: [82], which was further coupled with a "go fuck yourself, asshole". Again, clearly not acceptable under even the most generous interpretation of WP:CIVILITY. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is Guy never would have posted that if Hrodvarsson hadn't gotten their bonnet in a bunch over a harmless comment. I second my statement, grow thicker skin or get off the internet. --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that excuses exactly nothing. Whether Hrodvarsson's response to the first comment was the proximal cause of Guy's second comment is rather an inconsequential question--the comments were still way out of proportion to the circumstances and per se inappropriate on this project; there's no such thing as context where those comments are not completely incivil, and frankly disruptive. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am always amazed at the amount of effort some people put into fussing over minor slights. Don't they have anything better to do with their time? EEng 01:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC) I will note in passing, however, one disturbing data point which I hope does not become a trend: please, let us not start copying entire posts into edit summaries, so that a talk page's history becomes a mirror of the page itself.

Hasn't the duplication of comments in edit summaries been popular for some time? Natureium (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Your name offends me..... Expect an Arb case in due course :), Jokes aside tho the generation today always look for something to be offended at and it's only getting worse. –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a polemical, tar them all with the same brush, argument from authority if ever I heard one. Even if you knew Hrodvarsson's age (and I doubt you do), we don't need to speculate on the perceived over-sensitivity of a given generation (or any social class) in order to decide whether a comment violates our community's civility standards. To do that we look at the specific comment/conduct of specific editors, without regard to who they were targetting and how offended they were by it. For example, if an editor told me "STFU you stupid cunt" and I shrugged and went about my day, and even posted "LOL, ok, whatever" an admin would still be certain to block that user, and for good cause. Guy's comments may be a bit short of that, but some of the ones that have been cited here from the last couple of weeks are sufficiently hostile to other editors and the spirit of stable collaboration that if you don't see a problem with them, I wonder if WP:Civility links us both to same policy... Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Response from Guy Macon

There are two things that I would like everyone to understand.

First, it has been my policy for many years that if any Wikipedia administrator asks me to stop doing something I immediately stop, whether or not I agree. If it's important to me I talk it over on the admins talk page, and if it is really important to me I may ask AN and see if multiple admins disagree (this hasn't happened yet - the talk page has always resolved the issue). So by definition, if I get blocked either I violated my own rule or the block will be without warning (I do realize that some things get you blocked with no prior warning) and the admin will have decided to block a user with twelve years of editing Wikipedia, 40,000 edits, and zero sanctions of any kind.

I note that the one person above who thinks I went too far (Snow Rise) is not an admin, but rather an ordinary user trying to convince the admins to sanction me, and that he himself writes things like "I've seen a lot of needlessly antagonistic contests of wills come through this forum over the years, but genuinely don't know if I ever seen a discussion go from zero to grudge match (and in record time) over such an utterly trivial difference in content"[83]

Second, it is my considered opinion that Hrodvarsson is what I call an "outragist"; that is someone who purposely takes umbrage at normal behavior. Often a bit of minor ridicule is enough to make them realize that this won't work with me, but on the other hand it is entirely possible for me to take the minor ridicule too far. Hopefully my rule above will correct me if that happens.

It is also my considered opinion that this ANI filing, with the wide-eyed innocent "Is this a joke that I am unaware of, or what is the explanation for this?" comment is simply Hrodvarsson doubling down and trying the same trick here. I admit that I was snarky and that I may have been too snarky, but I deny that I was in any way unclear.

So if you want me to stop being snarky in general, just ask and I will do my best to tone it down. If you simply think that I should no longer be so snarky with Hrodvarsson, consider it done. I now believe that he is so invested in feigning outrage that it is beyond the power of a bit of minor ridicule to stop, and I don't intend to have any further interactions with him.

Of course I may be wrong. He might really as easily offended as he claims to be. If so, I don't see a bright future for him considering the nature of discourse on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, please stop being snarky in general. The seven or so sentences quoted above indicate that you were taking some sort of pleasure in skewering your opponent, and your behavior was unseemly. That does not help build the encyclopedia. There are plenty of social media sites where you can vent at will. Our discourse is not the discourse of Reddit or 4Chan, but rather of volunteers collaborating to build an encyclopedia. You pointed out that Snow Rise is not an administrator as if that mattered. It doesn't. Any editor can comment on any other editor's behavior and administrators have no special authority in making such evaluations. We just have the power to impose sanctions if the behavior is egregious. So, tone it down, please. And accept input from all of your fellow editors, whether or not they are administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will, as is my personal policy, comply. I will do my best to be less snarky. And, although I comply whether I agree or not, in this case I have no disagreement with the actual request; asking someone to be less snarky when they were being snarky is entirely appropriate.

I do disagree with your suggestion that I comply with any request by any user and I disagree with the assertion that being someone who has been vetted by the community as being trusted to deal with user behavior is the same as some random editor. Unless you order me to do otherwise I intend to continue to comply with all requests by admins and to evaluate requests by ordinary users on a case-by-case basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where did I give you the impression that I want you sanctioned? I said that nowhere above, I think you will find with reflection. My response was not really even inspired so much by you as for the (quite perplexing in my view) assertion that Hrodvarsson was being histrionic by bringing his report here. I personally think that's a perfectly reasonable comment to want to bring to the attention of the community -- but I do think it fair to say we apparently have very different views of the threshold for clear-cut violations of WP:CIVILITY. This is honestly something I did not realize until now, because I have shared a community space with you certainly on hundreds of occasions across the years, and I honestly have no memory of you being particularly caustic, sarcastic, or hostile in the way that appears in some of your recent edits brought to attention here. So trust me that I have no agenda to get you sanctioned and I can't speak for Hrodvarsson but if you two aren't going to be engaging eachother, that seems like all the resolution anyone was going to seek here. In any event, I'm not sure why you would like to make this about me, or for that matter about any admin or "mere" community member who may respond to you. Your offer to comport yourself with administrator expectations is admirable, but even better would be engaging with why that comment was not appropriate and goes, I'm sorry, just way beyond "snarky" or "maybe even a little too snarky"; snark isn't six sentences of sustained insults dripping with disrespect and antagonism. So I'd like to present two things to you. The first is the lead sentence from WP:CIVILITY:

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

The second is your comment:

"I am sorry. I had not realized that you are a delicate flower who gets triggered by such mild comments. True, being able to survive the rough and tumble of a normal conversation is a rudimentary skill that many of us "normal" people assume everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed you to even the slightest criticism. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you."

Do you -- not a mere concerned (or unconcerned) community member, nor even a legion of admins -- do you find those two things to be in comportment with one-another? Because while I never thought we were headed for sanctions here, and think the OP's issues are resolved if you are saying you are going to avoid them, I think this is a legitimate question for the community to be asking you, and your hostility to my non-admin status and my worthiness to be questioning you not withstanding, I doubt I'm the only one wondering it. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:53, 22 June 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.

ImSonyR9

ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a long history of bad and unsourced edits, as can be seen on their talk page. They recently added content that claims Aap Kaa Surroor (album) sold over 50 million copies, with no references supporting it. I think administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with another editor doing the same thing. The solution was to either wait for them to reply (either here or their talkpage) to demonstrate how they came up with their data, or let them continue editing. The proviso was that if they continued editing, but continued to add unsourced info, they'd be blocked. Looks like they last edited yesterday, they've seen the notifications, etc, so lets see what their next edit(s) show. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe an admin could drop a friendly note on their talkpage about this... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User: 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4874:4902:ED4A:3C93 Inappropriate Behavior

I just got a message on my talkpage see here making unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet without providing any proof and making threats to delete my edits and comments. I suspect that this anonymous IPV6 user is User:Bankster or someone associated with User:Bankster trying to openly intimidate and threaten me in order to stop me from making edits. Additionally shortly thereafter the aforementioned anonymous IPV6 message was deleted by User:Bankster and replaced by a long incoherent diatribe. Both the Anonymous IPV6 user and User:Bankster should be immediately have their editing privileges locked for an indefinite period of time for inappropriate behavior. I honestly feel concerned about my safety because it seems that both the anonymous IPV6 and User:Bankster has taken the "My way or the Highway" approach when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, Bankster is in an edit war with the same IP on their user page. It's impossible for the two to be the same person. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve blocked for 31 hours. The blanking is allowed, but the edit summaries, etc. and editing pattern as a whole are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: I wasn't involved with that warning on any matter. This IP address which was used to post that is currently blocked for disruptive editing and currently under investigation for being a sockpuppet of banned user Vote (X) for Change. (edit conflict)--Bankster (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:Bankster, I realize that now and apologize. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bankster:, Vote (X) is in the UK, not Los Angeles, so this clearly isn't them. Also, please don't place sock tags on dynamic IP user pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

The following discussion is closed. 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, Am I correct in thinking this should be revdelled ? ... I emailed Oversight an hour and nothing's been done, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

We need to stop User:Ghazan Marwat in his tracks, he is removing sourced information from many pages and there is no time to give them a warning. By the time we warn them, they will be done removing information from all constituency pages which is my hard work for last many weeks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I see 9 edits by Ghazan Marwat today, the last being a little over an hour ago. You have reverted four of them. I do see him removing one candidate's name and adding another on most of those edits. You did not warn the editor before bringing this to ANI. Your first recourse normally is to revert, and then discuss. A complication is that they did remove citations without explanation. I have had great difficulty in determining how the source you added supported the inclusion of the candidate in question. Can you refine the citations so that a user can verify the name of the candidate without scrolling through many pages and following multiple links? - Donald Albury 17:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, withdrawing my request, sorry to bother you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

publication of Marco Missana

The following discussion is closed. 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,

this is the answer of Italian Society of Physics. If you give me the address, I can forward it.
Dear Dr. Missana,
in reply to your request we are pleased to grant you the permission to reproduce the English translation of the requested article, free of charge, provided that
- full credit (journal title, volume, year of publication, page, name(s) of the author(s), article title, original copyright notice) is given to the publication in which the material was originally published by adding: with kind permission of Società Italiana di Fisica
- the link to the original publication is added (https://www.sif.it/riviste/sif/gdf/econtents/2003/044/02/article/4)
- Copyright (Year) by the Italian Physical Society 
With our best regards,
The Editorial Office
-------------------------------
Giornale di Fisica
Editorial and Production Office
Societa' Italiana di Fisica
''[contact info redacted]'' Bologna (Italy)

''[contact info redacted]''

In Wikipedia is it better to insert the link to this page http://marcomissana.retelinux.com/index_en.html or directly to this other http://marcomissana.retelinux.com/missana_en.pdf? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missana.marco (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No clue as to what this is about, but I'm pretty sure that release is not compatible with our licensing. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Missana.marco: What John from Idegon said. This may be what you want-- https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ or I'm more familiar with permissions-enwikimedia.org. This does not look like something we deal with on this board.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also it looks like they are asserting copyright. That is not suitable here. COntent must be public domain, GFDL or creative commons.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be an attempt to continue this archived ANI thread. @Missana.marco:, did you read WP:FRINGE as requested? What the other editors say above also applies - you can't add copyrighted text anywhere on Wikipedia, and the email you reproduce asserts the copyright of your father's article text. Adding a reference to an article is in general fine, but as you have a direct conflict of interest you should not do that yourself, nor should you edit articles to add your father's theories. Use the talk pages of the relevant articles to suggest changes - this has all been explained on your user talk page before, so please take a little time to go through the information there. Thank you, --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 22 June 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.

ImSonyR9

ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a long history of bad and unsourced edits, as can be seen on their talk page. They recently added content that claims Aap Kaa Surroor (album) sold over 50 million copies, with no references supporting it. I think administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with another editor doing the same thing. The solution was to either wait for them to reply (either here or their talkpage) to demonstrate how they came up with their data, or let them continue editing. The proviso was that if they continued editing, but continued to add unsourced info, they'd be blocked. Looks like they last edited yesterday, they've seen the notifications, etc, so lets see what their next edit(s) show. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe an admin could drop a friendly note on their talkpage about this... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User: 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4874:4902:ED4A:3C93 Inappropriate Behavior

I just got a message on my talkpage see here making unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet without providing any proof and making threats to delete my edits and comments. I suspect that this anonymous IPV6 user is User:Bankster or someone associated with User:Bankster trying to openly intimidate and threaten me in order to stop me from making edits. Additionally shortly thereafter the aforementioned anonymous IPV6 message was deleted by User:Bankster and replaced by a long incoherent diatribe. Both the Anonymous IPV6 user and User:Bankster should be immediately have their editing privileges locked for an indefinite period of time for inappropriate behavior. I honestly feel concerned about my safety because it seems that both the anonymous IPV6 and User:Bankster has taken the "My way or the Highway" approach when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, Bankster is in an edit war with the same IP on their user page. It's impossible for the two to be the same person. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve blocked for 31 hours. The blanking is allowed, but the edit summaries, etc. and editing pattern as a whole are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: I wasn't involved with that warning on any matter. This IP address which was used to post that is currently blocked for disruptive editing and currently under investigation for being a sockpuppet of banned user Vote (X) for Change. (edit conflict)--Bankster (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:Bankster, I realize that now and apologize. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bankster:, Vote (X) is in the UK, not Los Angeles, so this clearly isn't them. Also, please don't place sock tags on dynamic IP user pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

NLT matter

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

---

I don't pay much attention to exactly how WP:No legal threats is finely interpreted, but this [84] appears to be an unmistakable legal threat of "a case of defamation conspiracy" against WP/WMF if we don't delete sourced material just because it doesn't have the sources the subject's organization prefers. It was made by a WP:SPA who works for/with the subject of the article, Swami Nithyananda. Same user has received multiple administrative warnings for various stuff, including a final pre-block warning from an admin about two months ago User talk:Priyabrata11#Final warning. Maybe an unrelated incident, I dunno. I have some qualms about indeffing the user, because the article is subjected to extremes of both pro and con pushing, with much of the latter being WP:BLP violations. However, I understand NLT blocks to be easily undone simply by indicating clear understanding of the rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend an actual behavioral indef for breaching the final warning as opposed to a procedural NLT indef. Swarm ♠ 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, the warning was more than two months ago and we don't know the nature of the issues then (though it probably has something to do with the revdel here); suggesting that anyone who receives a final warning is therefore on probation indefinitely and can be blocked without warning on any questionable behaviour thereafter seems like a tenuous conclusion that has never been enshrined in policy. On the other hand, we do have community consensus (and a general practice) of coming down hard on those who who violate NLT, and (note: this is the part which most directly addressed your inquiry, SMcCandlish) topics related India are under discretionary sanctions. But I guess we don't have to decide between the two options. Were I in the place of an admin who had arrived at the conclusion that a block was necesary, I would articulate that the immediate present concern is the legal threat, but that it is part of a pattern of recent disruptive behaviour, all of which have taken place in the same WP:DS area. (We know this last point for a fact, because all of their contribution history relates to Indian culture and current events). Snow ^{let's rap} 19:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the warning was a direct response to this edit, although that revdel? That's no moon RevDel, it's a space station supression. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding DS, the user hasn't been alerted to India (well, I literally just did it). But they do have a BLP sanctions notice, so any DS sanction can be done under that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a personal rule that I don't go to AE for DS. If ANI won't deal with it, then it'll just continue until it gets bad enough that ANI deals with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected--good eye! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• It's actually getting worse. Same editor just re-did their revert, with "the user smcCandlish is writing defaming information without citing proper legal sources ... This is a serious case of deliberate defamation by paid media sources/ paid writers having hidden agendas against Hinduism" [85], which is both a legal threat against me, and weird WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA thing accusing me of anti-Hinduism. The edits in question are not mine at all. (Nor do I work for a newspaper!) Even if they were, this sort of behavior wouldn't be a permissible response.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  PS: This second NLT issue came up after this ANI was opened and the editor was notified of it on their talk page [86].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  More of same: "user smcCandlish is also deleting the references that I have added which includes the timeline, conspiracy and USA/India court orders. I request smcCandlish to not delete the references which ..." [87]. I haven't added or deleted anything, just commented on the talk page (actually in favor of examining the sources the SPA is using, in case they point to actual legal documents). This is a clear WP:CIR problem: the user appears unable understand what edits belong to what editor, nor to stop making everything a personalized WP:BATTLEGROUND including accusations of legally actionable wrongdoing (which would still be bullshit even if they identified the correct party).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism indef, they've just gone full Rambo. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd attribute that to WP:CIR rather than vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked them for 24 hours since they can't, they won't, and they don't stop. Y'all can take it from here. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  LOL. I'm sure you know 24 hours won't fix this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) With all of the options to choose from (WP:NPA, refusal to WP:AGF, WP:NLT, general disruption on articles covered by WP:DS, vandalism, and more aside) I hope that any return to form after the block ends will be met with an indef. It may be worth leaving the thread open for a day and a half, just in case SMcCandlish or anyone else notices problematic behaviour after the block expires. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And there's a place on the talk page for them when they come back. If, after their block ends, they continue attacking SMcCandlish in their edit summaries while edit warring, I'd be very much inclined to indef them. Alternatively, if an uninvolved admin wants to throw discretionary sanctions at them (a topic ban from Indian religious leaders would probably work), then this would be pretty much over (either they follow it or they get blocked). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Drmies is just ending the disruption while the community discusses, premised on an edit warring block, which is the least of concerns here. Basically, we have 24 hours 23 hours 46 minutes to come to a decision. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words, we're settled that going to be Priyabrata11 is going to end up indeffed one way or another, we're just figuring for what specifically? *shrug* I was OK with just another foot of WP:ROPE, but whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes those who get blocked over removal of negative content have a valid point. We should consider these edits. by Ryanmeadows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This seems to be a SPA who might have added undue weight to some very negative BLP content. This may what he was upset about.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 23 June 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 am using following 2 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.

---

my original account is user:Sdfrgthyju thumb|Security, Kato! MY alternate account is user:Sdfrgthyju2

THE 2nd account for security purpose only

is it correct procedure or can i delete one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfrgthyju (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you create your userpages on each of the accounts and make a note linking the two accounts together. Blackmane (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

yes i added {{User alternative account}} template to my alternate account

If i am correct..i will start edit from today on wards. suggest me (Sdfrgthyju (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC))

• Your first listed account has exactly 4 edits [88], all of which went into creating this report, so what, exactly are you talking about? Why do you need a second account for "security purposes", when the account is obviously named after the original account? What possible "security" can that provide? And how did a brand new editor find their way to this page before even doing any editing to the encyclopedia? I'm no dummy, but it took me many months before I became aware of it. Is it possible that you learned about it while editing under a different account?
  What is this all about, really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

mostly i edit at my office . so for security purpose i want to reserve 2nd account without using (Sdfrgthyju (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC))

If any one suggest it is wrong , i will add deletion tag for 2nd account(Sdfrgthyju (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC))

• "mostly i edit at my office" - Except that you haven't done any editing that we can see except to this thread. What editing is it that you're referring to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked as Nsmutte socks, along with JamesBondd123. BethNaught (talk) 07:25, 24 June 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.

Repeated addition of original research to Dwile flonking by User:Pollycarrot

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

---

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

Pollycarrot repeatedly adds original research in non-encyclopedic style to the article Dwile flonking, the only article he edits (see [89], [90], ...). He does not react on his talk page. I am starting to suspect that he is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Count Count (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Now Pollycarrot is also edit-warring against multiple other editors. --Count Count (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed for edit warring and adding something I made up one day. Not here. Move along. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I must say though, most of that article is of rather dubious encyclopaedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 24 June 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.

ImSonyR9

ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a long history of bad and unsourced edits, as can be seen on their talk page. They recently added content that claims Aap Kaa Surroor (album) sold over 50 million copies, with no references supporting it. I think administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with another editor doing the same thing. The solution was to either wait for them to reply (either here or their talkpage) to demonstrate how they came up with their data, or let them continue editing. The proviso was that if they continued editing, but continued to add unsourced info, they'd be blocked. Looks like they last edited yesterday, they've seen the notifications, etc, so lets see what their next edit(s) show. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe an admin could drop a friendly note on their talkpage about this... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User: 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4874:4902:ED4A:3C93 Inappropriate Behavior

I just got a message on my talkpage see here making unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet without providing any proof and making threats to delete my edits and comments. I suspect that this anonymous IPV6 user is User:Bankster or someone associated with User:Bankster trying to openly intimidate and threaten me in order to stop me from making edits. Additionally shortly thereafter the aforementioned anonymous IPV6 message was deleted by User:Bankster and replaced by a long incoherent diatribe. Both the Anonymous IPV6 user and User:Bankster should be immediately have their editing privileges locked for an indefinite period of time for inappropriate behavior. I honestly feel concerned about my safety because it seems that both the anonymous IPV6 and User:Bankster has taken the "My way or the Highway" approach when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, Bankster is in an edit war with the same IP on their user page. It's impossible for the two to be the same person. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve blocked for 31 hours. The blanking is allowed, but the edit summaries, etc. and editing pattern as a whole are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: I wasn't involved with that warning on any matter. This IP address which was used to post that is currently blocked for disruptive editing and currently under investigation for being a sockpuppet of banned user Vote (X) for Change. (edit conflict)--Bankster (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:Bankster, I realize that now and apologize. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bankster:, Vote (X) is in the UK, not Los Angeles, so this clearly isn't them. Also, please don't place sock tags on dynamic IP user pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Carcatontss

This editor is relatively new, has been editing for three months or so. They have been contacted several times by me and others about the articles they are creating, which are poor quality (poor English, unreferenced). Please see User talk:Carcatontss#Ways to improve Prince Eunsin, User talk:Carcatontss#Sources and communication and User talk:Carcatontss#Your new articles. I have pointed out the importance of WP:V and also that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. I've contacted them six times over the last two months but am getting nowhere. As they are new, I am not suggesting an indefinite block, but we need to get their attention and make it clear that sourcing and communication are essential. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone care to adopt him/her? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

They have literally one communication-type edit in any namespace - replying with "thank you" to a bot about 3 months ago. Might be a bit hard to adopt if they don't reply. ansh666 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user with a note that people are trying to help them address issues with their edits, and they need to engage. Any admin can lift this block once the issue is resolved, no need to ask me first. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Lists of songs by non notable artists

• 88.98.80.38 (talk · contribs)

Warnings go back to the spring of 2016. I don't even want to take a good look at how many hundreds of edits may require reversion. The good news is that some of the edits added notable musicians. The bad news is that many haven't, and distinguishing between them will require sifting through sand. It's pretty clear that the account hasn't taken the warnings, or guidelines, seriously. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How about linking a few here, so editors know what you are talking about. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The 88. IP's contribution history for the last several days is nothing but these edits to articles like List of songs about London. And none of these are referenced, the IP only adds wikilinking where it can be done. Arguably I think those whole lists are a problem and delve into OR, this is just a tip of the iceburg, but ANI is not where that should be decided. --Masem (t) 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

[91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]. These are just a few from the last few days. To repeat: the IP was warned more than two years ago. This is the perfect place to bring this. It's a lengthy abuse of editing privilege that appears to have never been addressed. This starts with a block, and follows with clean up. That the lists are problematic is another issue; at the moment I'm reporting long term issues with an individual editor. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Masem probably agrees with all of that. I think what they meant was that another centralized discussion will need to take place at another space (or spaces) to sift through content issues involved with deciding what must be reverted and how to manage the analysis most efficiently; I don't think they meant to imply this is not the proper place to deal with the initial behavioural issues. At least, that's how I read the comment. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

But yes, those lists are immense cruft repositories. So perhaps any action directed toward an individual is futile. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well all one can do is to try to be happy in the way of Sisyphus. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 09:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/Personal Attacks

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

@Milko Broz: reverted content that is well cited from the Konispol article for wp:idontlikeit reasons [100], [101] on having a dislike that religious demographics are mentioned. I reverted those changes [102] explaining to the editor those reasons were insufficient. @Milko Broz then reverted me [103], [104] and claimed the data in the article on religion was "politically motivated". I reverted the editor again and explained that having data on religion was ok and advised to make use of the article talkpage [105] for any concerns that they may have.

• @Milko Broz proceeded to add comments on my talkpage which fall within WP:PERSONAL attacks. The first was [106]. I reverted Milko Broz on my talkpage [107] and stated that they should conduct themselves in a civil manner and if they continued with previous commentary further actions as per Wiki rules would be taken. A warning about edit warring was also placed on his talkpage [108]. @Milko Broz then proceeded to come back to my talkpage and post two more personal attack comments [109], [110].

Among some of the things said in all his comments on my talkpage are:

• "You can not impose a label on a people just because you want to. We live here and are not interested in your crap."
• "Who are you? You take in upon yourself to intrude into my community. you may be in service of someone but i live there and i don't care about Jimmy Wales agenda. I care of the fact that some people like you walk into may village and politicise and play divide and rule. You are evil people. back off to your cia bunker."
• "What are you talking about edit warring and all this stuff? Man i just googled my village and you people are spewing crap. fuck you all! So i set up an account but is seems is not that simple because is not really a bloody free wikipedia. it seems to have policeman deciding who is who and how to portray peoples of this shitty planet. Wikipedia is fake and political. Portraying my village half muslim half this half that is bullshit. we don't care about this stuff. nasty punk!"
• "I am not a muslim or anything. you can take your stupid religions and shove them up Jimmy Wales and yourself. Crazy imperialist bitches. I find no information if trump fucks melania in her bum. can you please do some work on this and put it on Wikipedia because it is so relevant we can not carry on with our life if we don't know what trump does to his bitch. How abou this , you like this? you punk!"

All this was unnecessary by that editor, very disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs an Indef - and the comments reposted should be collapsed to make them not searchable in archives. Resnjari is very restrained here. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Holy mother of WP:NOTHERE that's a lot hostility, even to bring to bear on such a nasty, imperialist punk as Resnjari! Which is not to make light of the insults. I personally would support an indef, per the obvious fact that this user is an SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia but rather to assert their ire at a perceived insult to their home village. Furthermore, given the nature of their engagement with process and community standards so far, I think it would be unlikely that the editor in question can be reasoned with to such a degree that they will accept the nature of our verification standards; they have already gone hard in the direction of assuming a nefarious motive and everything that has been said so far has been interpreted in the context of the assumption that American foreign agents are trying to foment division and sectarianism in their community.

While I have a little bit of respect for this individual for their apparently genuine devotion to forestalling sectarianism, their assumption of bad fatih, open hostility to this entire project, and inability to engage at any speed short of zero-to-fury in five seconds suggests that this aim cannot be synergized with our community policies such to arrive at attaining a non-disruptive editor and an improvement to the article in question. One could try a month block and see if it remedied the more egrigious issues, but I think we can reasonably make the call that this is unlikely to happen and consider implementing the probably inevitable block now. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on these edits--What are you talking about edit warring and all this stuff? Man i just googled my village and you people are spewing crap. fuck you all! So i set up an account but is seems is not that simple because is not really a bloody free wikipedia. it seems to have policeman deciding who is who and how to portray peoples of this shitty planet. Wikipedia is fake and political. Portraying my village half muslim half this half that is bullshit. we don't care about this stuff. nasty punk!, I intend to indef per nothere. Unblock if you think I overdid it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: You did the right thing. Their personal attacks on Resnjari, Wikipedia and its editors in general were awful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

My preference was not to do this as i see ANI as a last resort and i told the editor to refrain from that behavior, but they continued. They did a disservice to themselves with their persistence. Disappointing really (sigh).Resnjari (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Dobrearsov11

Dobrearsov11 (talk · contribs) appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Editing without edit summaries, while ignoring comments and requests to discuss on talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of attempts to add coat of arms and emblems to nation articles, which is WP:GNOME-ish and not NOTHERE, even if they're completely screwing up in their attempts to do so. This and their deleted article attempts are concerning, though.

I'm not ready to indef under NOTHERE just yet, but I am open toward a block to get their attention if they continue to act without responding to this discussion. Leaving a final warning on their page to start communicating, but not gonna wheelwar if another admin decides a different course of action is necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I’ve already given them a final warning before it was brought here so I’m willing to wait and see how they come back. But considering all their other edits have been reverted if their next edits are revert material, I’m going to block them next time. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for sure. The only reason I didn't point to yours and call it a day was that yours wasn't blunt to the point that WP:CIR applies to anyone who didn't get it. It lead in with content discussion before getting to the warning, and some... less literate users are prone to "missing" such warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair points, agreed. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Admins needed

at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. I can't add them as fast as they are vandalising the SPI. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Page protected. Also keeping an eye on new accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

IP Jumping Vandalism over at An American Tail: Fievel Goes West

Putting this out here before this turns worse.

It appears we have another case of an IP Jumping Vandal from Virginia (with one from the Philipines), whom is claiming that An American Tail: Fievel Goes West came out as a direct-to-video film rather than theatrically. This is being handled already by FilmandTVFan28, and I requested semi-protection of the page already. The IPs involved in this matter are -

• User_talk:49.148.250.143
• User_talk:2600:1:F439:2A54:0:6E:E348:9D01
• User_talk:108.21.248.15 - This IP was blocked for 31 hours.

May need to have a range block on the Virginia IPs if this continues. The diffs are -

• [[111]]
• [[112]]
• [[113]]

--IanDBeacon (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Update - Turns out the IP from the Philipines, User_talk:49.148.250.143, is now engaged with me in an edit-war regarding the addition of unsourced material. He has since been reported to WP:AIV just awaiting actions.IanDBeacon (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• All three IPs are currently blocked and I have protected the page. However, neither the blocks nor the page protection are long term. Extra eyes on the article would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Political advocacy by Jamez42 / Susmuffin

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

---

Editors involved:

• Jamez42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Susmuffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Myself (dynamic IP):

• 2601:644:1:B7CB:79C3:469B:A0A7:39C3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:644:1:B7CB:E002:6ED8:35FB:7B72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Short summary:

The above editors, Jamez42 and Susmuffin, appear to be paid political advocates who are deliberately adding and maintaining biased content to El Paraíso stampede.

Details:

As of this writing, the current revision of El Paraíso stampede contains several instances of bias and improper synthesis:

See also: Venezuelan protests (2014–present) and Shortages in Venezuela

Tear gas is strictly prohibited in Venezuela, except for use by the police and military. Media outlets have been the targets of tear gas attacks at their headquarters in the past, such as El Nacional and Globovisión. Pro-government groups known as colectivos have also been known to attack the opposition, once tear-gassing the Vatican envoy in 2009 after President Hugo Chávez accused the Roman Catholic Church of interfering with his government. News articles have reported that several of the devices and weapons are obtained by civilians through theft and by police or military corruption and that such items are used frequently by criminals.

The hatnote makes a connection between the topic of the article and Venezuelan protests and shortages which is not supported by any source. The second sentence in the above paragraph mentions Globovisión, which is not mentioned in the cited source. The third sentence cites a 2014 Reuters article with no connection to this incident, making this improper synthesis. The section overall is structured to blame the incident covered by the article on Venezuelan unrest and pro-government violence, a conclusion which is completely unjustified by any of the cited sources.

Additionally, there are other smaller instances of undue weight or original synthesis, such as the following:

As a result of shortages in Venezuela, family members stated that there were no medical supplies at area hospitals to treat victims of the stampede.

The cited source quotes a single person as stating that a single local hospital did not have sufficient supplies, and makes no mention of larger-scale shortages, so the above sentence is another clear example of biased original synthesis.

Given the above material is in obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and original research policies, I attempted to remove it on June 18[114][115] and again on June 19.[116][117][118] In between these two edits, the bias was remarked upon by another editor, @Lopiano, on the talk page. However, my efforts were blockaded by editors who sought to retain the biased material, as follows:

• User Jamez42 repeatedly reverted the changes without discussing on the talk page.[119][120][121]
• After reaching the 3-revert limit on June 19, Jamez42 utilized a sockpuppet/tag team account, Susmuffin, to make a third revert.[122] Note that this third revert happened within seconds of the previous ones, making it unlikely to be a coincidence.
• Along with their reverts, Jamez42 and Susmuffin left harrassing talk page messages with each revert on my IP talk page.[123][124][125]
• Rather than continue the edit war, I added a neutrality template to discuss further on the talk page.[126][127] Jamez42 promptly deleted that as well in order to prevent discussion.[128] This clearly shows the user was acting in bad faith to deliberately propagate the biased content, and not simply ignorant of Wikipedia policy.

Based on the highly organized process by which all efforts to improve the article were blocked, the evident malicious intent of the editors, as well as the users' edit histories showing constant daily edits on a scale unlikely to be volunteer activity, I believe these users are paid political advocates who are trying to spread anti-Venezeulan bias in this article during a time of maximum exposure on the front page "In the News" section (which Jamez42 nominated the article for[129]). It appears from their edit history that Jamez42 has been carrying out similar propaganda tactics on other Venezuela-related articles, although I don't have the time to look into these in detail.

It's clear that Wikipedia has weak institutional defenses against this kind of deliberate, organized PR campaign, as evidenced by the fact that the biased material has remained on the article for several days now. I believe that admin intervention is necessary to block these users and protect Wikipedia from further sabotage. Of course, it's likely that the PR firm behind these accounts operates many others, but I guess that's out of scope for this incident. 2601:644:1:B7CB:D417:AECA:710A:207 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply: Seriously? In case this isn't closed soon, give me time to read thoroughly and answer properly, I'm currently editing in the Spanish Wikipedia, but at first sight I can say the claims are ludicrous. Feel free to ask for a Checkuser if you believe Susmuffin and I are the same editor, it will only confirm what I'm stating. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 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:ThePierrasse (again)

Please see previous thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#User:The Pierrasse. I opened this in March because the editor wouldn't communicate or add references. They were given a final warning; their response is at User talk:ThePierrasse#Referencing, where they state: Then you might as well block me right away and take your final warning back. Nobody is required to contribute to this encyclopedia. They have edited rarely since, but have ignored my further message about sourcing. Their edits since then are at: [130]. They are small additions to existing articles - and the additions are not referenced. ThePierrasse has made it clear, despite an ANI and being pointed to the policies on sourcing and communication, that they see communication and sourcing as optional and nothing has convinced them otherwise - they have stated that they don't intend to keep to our policies. I think only an indef block is left. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a month, and made it clear that they must provide references. The next block should be an indefinite one, if it comes to that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I view both the call for action here and the block appropriate to the circumstances, I think it is worth mentioning that some of our policies were overstated on the user talk page, with regard to communication in particular. In reality, there is no formal requirement to engage when undertaking editorial tasks. There have been discussions sporadically throughout the years opining on just how far those habits can be taken towards the extreme, but for a certainty we have a handful of highly productive contributors who have not said a single word anywhere in talk or project space, and they are not seen as being de facto disruptive as was implied on that talk page. That said, it is a simple reality that if you want to edit like this, then you can never edit war and must desist from any controversial activity or habit when another editor raises it with you, because persisting in behaviour that leads to a dispute and then refusing to engage certainly is, at that point, actionable.

Of course, in this instance there is just such an additional factor: refusal to source, which is what Cullen quite rightly predicated their block on. So I don't mean to imply that anyone here did other than what they should have in these circumstances. But I did want to raise attention to the fact that telling a newbie who doesn't want to (or is not ready to) engage in community processes that they must do so is probably not a winning strategy in all instances. Put another way, if they were otherwise editing the encyclopedia non-controversially (and/or dropped matters that they were challenged on) there is no purpose to compel them to join our happy little community more substantively. Though come on, why wouldn't they--we're great people! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right. However, the standard here is that noobs who do editorial missteps and refuse to engage with the community despite being called out multiple times to do so, will be blocked till they start communicating. It's not about forcing the editor to join the community discussion process – it's about immediately arresting disruption being caused by these new hands. Anyway, like you said, we're great people, and we'll generally manage to motivate a few new editors to contribute more and more. Lourdes 17:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, ThePierrasse has been editing since 2012, so isn't a newbie. Let's hope they respond well to the block and understand the importance of sourcing from now on. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr.Koo disruptive editing - continued content removal without justification

• Dr.Koo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sadly, this editor has not responded to multiple requests to use edit summaries as recently as yesterday [131][132][133] and continues. Their editing includes completely unexplained content removal on fairly high profile articles like Kazakhstan here, they have also been warned about at least three instances of unexplained removals before [134]. Is it CIR or just don't care? Whichever, it's disruptive. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bri. Dr.Koo often makes rapid-fire edits on an article without using edit comments, making it hard to figure out what he's trying to do. He has been warned multiple times by different users, but refuses to communicate. It's been going on for way too long. -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

An admin might consider warning User:Dr.Koo that they might be blocked 24 hours the next time they remove content from an article without providing any edit summary. This outcome could be avoided if they respond here and promise to address the problem. They have never posted on their own talk page since their account was created in 2015, and have never answered any of the previous warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr.Koo was blocked by EdJohnston, having removed content without explanation after Bri notified them of this discussion, and after EdJohnston warned them they might be blocked. I undid several of their unexplained content removals. Their block has expired, and they have re-removed the same content I replaced from two articles (of six or seven total) here and here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely with responding on their talk as the unblock condition. Feel free to unblock if you think this excessive, but they ignored or were unaware of the 24 hour block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User has blanked their talk page, removing the block notice. ReverendWayne (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tay Ninh Cao Dai recreation

User Dien_Tri_Dinh created page Tay Ninh Cao Dai on the 23 6 2018 at 15:13, the page was submitted for deletion by User:Winner_42 for unambiguous copyright infringement from [135]. At 21:46 on the same day, Dien recreated the page without correcting any of the copyrighted material on the page (some of which was also taken from the organizations own webpage). I do not have access to the previous version of the article, but I can only assume it is either identical or very similar. The editor does not appear to have any other constructive edits, and has only had some minor conversations on the talk page of Education in Vietnam. Xevus11 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Request Proxy blocks

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

---

• 188.116.34.66 - contribs - WHOIS - Cis Nephax
• 188.116.37.154 - contribs - WHOIS - Cis Nephax
• 188.116.37.194 - contribs - WHOIS - Cis Nephax
• 188.116.37.186 - contribs - WHOIS - Cis Nephax
• 185.84.181.116 - contribs - WHOIS - BILINTEL NETWORK
• 103.18.58.198 - contribs - WHOIS - VpsCity NZ

Involved in a high-level sockpuppet scheme Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress#25_June_2018

Wadaad (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by 178.197.234.141

178.197.234.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said this in an edit summary "Deletion of false, misleading, incomplete and defamatory information about a living person. The person is an English lawyer with an unimpeached disciplinary record. These libels keep being reprinted on Wikipedia despite warnings that they are defamatory. As such any further repetition may be liable to incur liability for aggravated and/or exemplary damages under the Crimes and Courts Act 2013 to the extent that they are further repeated. The libel and media jurisidiction..."[136], to me this looks like a clear violation of WP:NLT. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, hence why I placed the warning on their page. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP 73.16.107.72

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

I think this user needs a longer time-out: [137] [138] (along with their recent edit summaries). They also have previous blocks for PA and disruptive editing in their block log. byteflush _Talk 02:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Byteflush for opening this thread. Personally, I couldn't be bothered with trolls who think they're going to succeed in riling me (see Byteflush's revert of this editor's 'rewriting' of my template messages), but I have intervened on behalf of other editors where the IP is being plain snarky and superior with the explicit intent of trying to call them out. If the IP were actually productive in some sense of the word, there may be some hope of rehabilitation, but this person is WP:NOTHERE in any sense of the concept. Note, also, that the IP has edited from at least another couple of accounts here and here: the same POV changes, and the same types of Ukrainophile tangents being followed.

Incidentally, being abusive is uncivil, but the descriptors and expletives this user resorts to at the drop of a hat are beyond something one would expect even in a heated exchange. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

• Couiros22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

A sample of some of his recent changes: [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [149][150][151][152]and most recently[153]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor ^(talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.

I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Wikipedia. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've put some notes about C22's editing on my talk page (User_talk:DexDor#Couiros22) and would support action (e.g. block or topic ban). DexDor ^(talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for block

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

---

@Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick, I've reviewed all the present discussion on Curious22's talk page, and while I do see the issues with less than stellar collaborative mindset that have been raised here, I'm also not finding your approach toward Curious to be 100% ideal either, at least at the moment. For a start, I agree with MSGJ below that Curious does indeed seem to be engaging in discussion--you just don't seem to like their answers very much. Which is fair: their attitude is pretty gung-ho and they clearly do not understand the pace at which BRD is meant to work, and I would even go as far to say that if they cannot make an effort to re-calibrate their perspectives on how consensus is formed, they could soon find themselves blocked or removed from certain areas. But your own approach to them (at least at present) is overly aggressive; your unilateral declaration that they are facing their "last chance" is particularly problematic, in my opinion. If I were facing that onslaught of demands to answer your questions, to your satisfaction in every instance, and they were all phrased like that, I'm not sure my responses would be any less curt than those of Curious22.

Now I can fathom that probably you did not start out approaching them this way and that you might reasonably claim that this is the result of frustration with a prolonged argument, which is fair enough. But other eyes are on the issue now, so it may be wise to stop grilling/engaging the editor in this fashion. If they continue to not engage substantially with the community in a review of these matters, very likely they will be blocked, in which case we will have begun to address your concerns. However, I see enough of a haze of antagonism here, that I'm not prepared to write off Curious as a problematic editor who cannot be made to see the need to slow down and discuss, if approached in the right way. Perhaps I am lacking details that would make me less optimistic about the liklihood of that, but I think right now both "sides" need to take a pause and step back, if only for a moment. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "declaration...problematic" part of the above comment: But I've also seen an admin (in a discussion about a very similar editor to C22) say  "I elected to not block since I was not comfortable with the warnings I saw.". DexDor ^(talk) 07:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't perceive the implied relevance. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More detail: In a discussion (about NotWith) the closing admin said "... they need to receive formal warnings on their talk page to get an administrator to take action.". Nick's comment to C22 was "... Last chance now. What categorization schema are you trying to implement, and where did you get consensus for it?" that you described as "problematic". That leaves me wondering what warning a non-admin can give to a problem editor (who isn't an obvious vandal) that is sufficiently formal without being (in your view) problematic.  However, in this case C22 has already been formally warned (e.g. in Oct 2016) so IMO a block for disruptive editing is long overdue. DexDor ^(talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I still completely fail to see how an admin's general comment (to another editor on a completely unrelated matter) that warnings should be issued before he feels comfortable instituting a block (a very conventional and reasonable position) has anything to do with the statement in question here; I don't know who the admin in question here is, but I feel confident in assessing that they were clearly talking about template warnings and the like--outreach efforts that are expected to come before blocks. That is not the same kind of "warning" as one party to a dispute making an ultimatum to another.

But I really don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you on this. I can elucidate on my perspective for Nick if he likes, but until such time, the more you and I debate it, the more strident the whole matter becomes, and concerns that were once simply expressed (and which Nick may have taken completely in stride) become overstressed and thus potentially become new points of contention--which would completely defeat the original purpose of the comment, which was simply to point out that the breakdown in communication may not be entirely one-sided and that temporary disengagement to let the broader community step in is highly advisable. I would extend that same advice to you; if you and Nick are correct and Curious22 can't be reasoned with, then they will hang themselves with the WP:ROPE that we will try to extend them and you will be vindicated. But if the matter can be resolved short of sanctions, so much the better. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I feel you have misunderstood and mischaracterised what has been going on. You claim we should give C22 enough WP:ROPE, but how much do we need to allow? The editor has made over 18,000 edits with barely a handful of edit summaries and hardly any talk page comments (149 when I last looked), how much more evidence do you need to demonstrate that this editor does not collaborate? They did not stop and engage in discussion when their editing was challenged instead they continued editing up to 80 to 100 articles a day. I do not think it unreasonable to ask what categorization schema the editore was seeking to apply, a quaestion they have yet to answer. How else are we to understand what they are doing? What else do you think I should have done? I suggest you reread the discussion that started here. Note that the editor was being challenged by several other editors for over a month before I made my first comment, yet they were continuing on unabated with their editing in exactly the same way that was being challenged. C22 was making obvious errors that were being pointed out to them, but their response was basically to resist rather then provide a coherent justification for their approach. I am quite prepared to have my actions examined here and I will take any advice given, but I am very disappointed at the superficial way C22's activities have been scrutinised. I expected better. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what I said that gave you the impression I was suggesting that the matter does not warrant attention, but that was not an intended assertion. And I did pretty explicitly say that I could fathom that there might be history here that could provide context to the heated tone in the exchange on the talk page. What I was trying to impart was that the comments you were exchanging by that point on the talk page were not terribly constructive, nor ideally phrased for project purposes (if you ever find yourself giving an ultimatum as one individual community member to another on this project and you aren't acting in the capacity of a position vested to you by the community, you should check yourself, because chances are you have gone a step too far, even if you started from a place of legitimate concern).

Incidentally, I do understand the awkward position you are in procedurally; WP:Advice pages prohibits you from using WikiProject recommendations as a yardstick for local consensus or disruption, but the activities are taking place across numerous articles and you want a unified discussion to force a recognition that Curios22's interpretations of standards that are at least partially governed by WP:COMMONNAME are off, and that they have pushed beyond BRD to disruption. And yet no single project space stands out as the appropriate place to have that conversation. I wish I could give you that one forum that is irrefutably appropriate to adjudicating the matter, but I admit, it's a headscratcher. But I can tell you that another editor's talk page is not the place, which is why I think (regardless of the number of editors aligned against Curious) that conversation was going nowhere so long as they (Curious) continued to disagree with you--and clearly they were not prepared to concede the matter at that point. What we need to do is figure out where you can get a working consensus that does not violate WP:Advice pages or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC at WP:VPP maybe? It feels like an awkward fit there too, but it may be the best of non-perfect options. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Placing the category "Fish of Australia" within "Marine fauna of Australia"[155] then doubling down by re-adding it when reverted.[156] This is obviously incorrect as "Fish of Australia" includes "Freshwater fish of Australia" which it should be obvious cannot be included in "Marine fauna of Australia". This sort of action seriously questions C22's judgement. Never mind that C22 fails to properly explain their categorization system, only states things like "common sense" and that they have decided what to do as if their decision is the end of the matter. They do not actually explain the rationale behind their approach when asked, simply say "I have already explained" when they plainly have not done so. The burden lies with the one proposing change and C22 has abjectly failed to this when challenged. This is not the way to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I made a mistake here, they did not place FofA in MFofA, but the other way round. This is even worse as marine fauna should obviously includes crustaceans, cephalopods, zooplankton, corals and other invertebrates as well as marine mammals and probably some bird species. - Nick Thorne ^talk 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like an example of C22 muddling up freshwater and marine fauna there's this. Note: The edit summary of my revert of that edit should have read "The rasboras are freshwater fish" (I was editing on mobile and hit the wrong key). DexDor ^(talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I replied to this here which again, you seemed to have freely dismissed. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean this? "Initially I had no idea the category would eventually contain just fish in the absence of other marine fauna, nor that (ini the presence of the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category) there would have to be a sister subcategory entitled "Marine fish of Australia" to "Fish of Australia" - nevertheless it's no alarming matter and perhaps we could just *automatically?* change the title "marine fauna" to "marine fish" ?" What sort of logic is that? Competence is required. - Nick Thorne ^talk 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The above quote came from this edit where C22 ignored the normal conventions of talk page use and gave a scattergun reply to individual points threading their replies within another editor's post thus making it very hard to understand who said what when reading the talk page. This is another example of C22 disregarding the norms of Wikipedia and failing to act in a collaborative way. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment. MSGJ, you say that C22 has tried to explain his/her reasons for some of these contentious edits, and I agree. But is that the point? Do you see any evidence that he/she has made any effort to listen to or understand – let alone heed – the concerns of the numerous editors who have questioned those edits (several of whom, unlike me, have extensive experience and/or knowledge in these fields)? I'm afraid I don't. C22's explanations remain at about the level of "yes, but as you can clearly see, it is flat". I opposed a block above, and favoured a topic ban; I still do. But a block is surely preferable to doing nothing, which is simply going to cause this to fester until it comes back here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely opposed to the notion of a topic ban, especially in light of C22's suboptimal engagement, even after the issue has been brought here. But I don't think we're remotely there yet. Here's the problem: C22 hasn't broken any policy or guideline, that I can tell--at least as regards the issues that have been raised here. The "best practice" rules the other editors are trying to enforce against C22's approach seem to be completely idiosyncratic to a group of editors operating out of WikiProject Fishes, if I am reading the situation correctly. This community has been very explicit about this kind of thing, over the years (we've had many community discussions and ArbCom has even ruled on the matter) and has repeatedly affirmed the follwing: the guidance developed at WikiProjects constitute WP:Advice pages only, and cannot be put forward as de facto "guidelines" in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions; only actual guidelines may be used with the effect of policy in such content disputes.

Now, of course we don't have policy on the names of fish, but we do have an MoS entry on point (which in this situation is close enough): WP:COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME states that either the scientific or the colloquial name may be used, and the controlling factor (unsurprisingly) is the WP:WEIGHT accorded to each in reliable sources: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." So, on the surface, this editor potentially has the right end of the policy stick on each of this name changes (though needless to say, they should not be creating a situation where article name and first-mentioned name in article are divergent) and the only way to decide for each of them is to have a local consensus discussion for each article where the matter is in dispute.

Now arguably, if C22 lost all of the present discussions and then went on their merry way continuing to make the same kinds of changes to more articles without supplying corroborating source evidence first, one could argue they are being disruptive and should be banned from those areas or temporarily blocked. But at present, the opposing parties have not made a principled (nor, critically, sourced) argument for why C22 is wrong with regard to any one of these articles. They are simply saying: "our group wants to do it this way by default because we are convinced it is best". And that just doesn't fly on this project. They don't have a clear-cut broad community policy endorsing their perspective over C22's and the MoS language on point needs a local consensus interpretation for each article, based on sourcing--which as far as I can tell, neither side has so much as attempted as yet. There's another, more one-sided, issue which has not been raised here but which was discussed on C22's talk page regarding some questionable categorization. Looking at that content question, I don't feel like C22 has a leg to stand on, but even that issue should be approached through a consensus discussion as to the content, rather than running here expecting this community to block C22 or remove them from the area before even the most basic dispute resolution/content consensus discussion has been attempted.

What we have here is essentially a series of content disputes for which we have established consensus processes for resolving--processes which neither side has attempted to avail themselves of before coming here and alleging intractability. That's not to say that I don't agree with you that C22 could benefit from a more collaborative disposition, but the more I look into the matter, the more I see that a sanction at this time would be very inappropriate, given the lack of consensus discussion in appropriate fora, which substantially negates the assertion of the thread OP and their contingent that "consensus" is being ignored. They haven't attempted to formulate consensus (as this community defines it) through appropriate methods as yet, and that should be their first step. They should try RfCing some of this on talk pages, and if C22 continues to go against the grain thereafter then it would be appropriate to bring them here for a discussion about disruption. Not before this effort has been made. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis of the situation, I will take your advice on board. However, WRT C22 you say " they should not be creating a situation where article name and first-mentioned name in article are divergent." Yet this is exactly what they had been doing in literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles against MOS direction (at least as I understand it) and was the reason I brought this here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a significant issue, and the problem is even further complicated by the fact that we don't want to encourage C22 to try to "remedy" those disconnects by moving around pages before you all of you arrive at a resolution on the issue. Hypothetically speaking, if he does win any consensus discussions regarding the WP:COMMONNAME of particular articles, then the articles should be moved accordingly once that consensus is affirmatively and unambiguously established, but it would be highly disruptive to do that before the content issues are decided. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at present time: Per my thoughts in the post immediately above. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through normal consensus processes before one side comes here making behavioural accusations of disruption. If and only if consensus has been established on this matter through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion (rather than efforts to enforce an WP:Advice page as if it were policy), and one party ignores that consensus, do we have a conduct issue. C22's cerititude in their own way of doing things and lack of engagement here do raise concerns that they may defy consensus once it is established, but we cannot sanction on that presumption alone and before the content issue has even been resolved via consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:18, 21 June 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.

Sound of crickets

ANI on a quiet night

EEng 20:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean sound of Gryllus assimilis. Fish+Karate 13:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh! relaxing. I'll try to get Y'all some cicada.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor blocked

I note that Couiros22 has been blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. Before this thread is closed off, I have asked the blocking admin JamesBWatson for advice here about how to deal with the edits of the editor. I would be interested in the comments of any others here on this issue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a good move to seek Watson's advice under the circumstances, but if I can offer a supplemental perspective: Under these circumstances, I believe that you are in the clear to revert all of the edits in controversy, provided that there were no other proponents for these changes. With C22 blocked, there is no longer an editor in good standing arguing for his approach (and indeed, as a block-evading sock, he never was one such editor). Since the impression I got from your statements here was that everyone else working on those pages disagreed with the changes, there should be no issue with presumptive consensus now. For reverts you suspect may draw attention, you may want to link to this discussion in the edit summary or on the talk page to clarify why you are doing mass reverts across a range of articles--since otherwise you may be mistaken for someone editing in a gung-ho fashion, rather than someone cleaning up after such an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring by an SPI case IP

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

---

A sock-puppeteer[157] using IPs is currently edit warring on the L3 page.[158] Wadaad (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism to User:Filedelinkerbot

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

---

The page User:Filedelinkerbot was vandalized and nobody removed it. When I try to remove it I get a message saying that unregistered and new users can’t edit other peoples user pages. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What specific vandalism are you seeing? I just looked and saw a single stray character and I removed it. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That was it. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 19:12, 25 June 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.

Problem

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

---

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

I got a problem of the user Imaginatorium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imaginatorium). He is attacking me using phrases like "He does not write coherent or grammatical English". And told my work as a junk, etc. I really want to resolve this matter. His conduct was continueing for a long period. I am really worried about his style of communication (that is very rude for me). He did not answer my questions too when I tried to clarify the matters with him. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you talk to them about this problem? And you forgot to notify them about this as directed at the top of the page. I've taken care of it for you. Natureium (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I am making a ping as I don't really like to include negative stuff in other people's talk pages. @Imaginatorium: Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an... interesting idea, but the top of this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Natureium (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So I guess that means you didn't discuss this with them on their talk page? Where did you try and clarify matters with them? Curdle (talk) 18:26, 25 June 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.

YborCityJohn

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

---

This user is pretty much the RUDEST user I've ever seen on Wikipedia and on the internet as an whole. He is very rude to his fellow editors and if you would CHECK his contribs you will see what I'm talking about. One time he called some editors "idiots". I confronted him on his talk page. He doesn't reply but instead clears his talk page. I redo my message telling him to stop with his rude behavior, He reverts and says that he does not take kindly to people telling him what he can and can't do depsite the fact that their is MANY things you CAN and CAN'T do on Wikipedia. He was edit warring on Adult Swim arguing that adding more useful info to the infobox makes it cluttered and chunky. On the page's talk page he talks as if he had ownership of the page and assuming that people who disagree could have their rights revoked. He also uses unprofessional words like "overkill". I, and probably several other fellow editors are tired of this childish, immature and unprofessional behaviour and believe that this needs to be stopped. Whoever deals with this entry, I would also consider removing his rollback and reviewer rights as I do not see him as experienced nor mature enough for these rights. He also never really uses them and when he does, he misuses them. I'm tired of the rudeness and disrespect this user is doing. Thank you. Bang 🌑 22:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Provide some diffs please? Also that isn't edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_Swim&diff=prev&oldid=846290915 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YborCityJohn&diff=prev&oldid=847502540. Note that the main thing here is that he's being very rude and is acting like he own the page Adult Swim. Bang 🌑 22:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but that warning was not put in place by him. I'm seeing comments in the history saying that it existed for some time. That isn't ownership if that was consensus. Removal would be against consensus. We have similar tags on articles prone to issues like these. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Kay, looking at the history I was mistaken and it was added on the 17th. Yes, he is a bit hostile, but considering he has consensus on the talk page and I see no effort on your part to go against it. I see you claiming he marked your edits as vandalism but I don't see that at all. Do you have diffs? Also I wonder if perhaps you are confusing ownership of the article with ownership of the channel... --Tarage (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

He's right about being able to clear his own talk page. Also, please read Wikipedia:INDENTGAP and use colons to indent replies on talk pages, because it helps with readability. Thanks! Nanophosis (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that but do note his previous agurement with User:Bankster. Also, he just plain rude. Something needs to be done. Bang 🌑 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The main problem here is his rudeness, all I want to be done is for him to quit his childish behaviour. Bang 🌑 23:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not about me. It's about his rude behavior. I do have effort to go aganist this and It's still not right as per WP:Cooperation. I never said he marked "my" edits as vandalism. If you read the talk page of Adult Swim you can see that he's assuming that people who disagree with what he has to say and edit anyways could be treated as an vandal. I'm talking about ownership of the article, not the channel. If you can not understand what I'm saying, I apologize. Bang 🌑 23:18, 25 June 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.

Continuation of disruptive edits by Mayerroute5 on return from 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.

---

User Mayerroute5 has returned from his ban and again resumed with his usual disruptive edits in the pages - 2018 Indian Premier League, Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59 - ignoring the protocols of the project. I request for some admin action on the user and some special protection for these pages and templates as such repeated disruption is making maintainance of the pages really difficult to monitor and even more so when the user is hell bent on imposing his own format which is of course not in accordance with what is followed in the project. Cricket246 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Couple problems with this particular report (See below).

1. The user who's been reported was NOT notified as required on their talk page regarding this ANI report (I took the liberty of doing so).

2. There is no indication that the OP User:Cricket246 attempted to resolve this whether on either of the 3 articles talk pages or the users talk page as per the following...

• Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page.
• Or try dispute resolution.

3. No diffs were provided by the OP demonstrating the problem. Be that as it may, i looked over the edit history of all three articles and found the very last edit by User:Mayerroute5 was on June 12th (12 days ago) and preceding that all the way back to May 6th for each of the aforementioned articles which the most recent edits on June 12th were reverted by Cricket246.

Lastly, here are the diffs for each article...

1. [159]

2. [160]

3. [161]

AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Adding links for Mayerroute5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to make it easier to review.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

On 2018 Indian Premier League-- two edits, no need for protection, on Template:2018 IPL match 58-- two edits, no need for protection, on Template:2018 IPL match 59-- two edits, no need for protection. In each, Mayerroute5, edited about 12 days ago and OP reverted. Mayerroute5 was blocked 2018-05-26 and has edited 4 times since. I see zero discussion on any of the three since I protected them about a month ago. Not seeing much to do here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of people from our project had already talked to the user on his talkpage about this earlier in May but there was no response and the disruption persisted, which is why the block was imposed. Then some IP started making same edits before the page was projected and now the concerned user has again returned. We never got any response from him by posting in his talkpage or inviting him for any discussion. Till now nothing more since yesterday, in case it happens again I will report it. Cricket246 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't need to participate in order for you to form a consensus. Go to the talk page of each of those articles and ping him and the last ten other recent editors. Or host and RfC. Do what you need to do to get consensus support for your approach and if he has refused to participate by that point, yet continues to edit war, now you have the evidence for disruption that you are currently lacking. But note that these discussions are necessary, not discretionary. You keep making reference to "our project", which I take to mean a WikiProject (and not en.wp generally). Please be sure to familiarize yourself with WP:Advice pages in this respect; decisions about the "best" approach to a problem amongst a group of editors at a WikiProject cannot be put forward as a pre-existing "consensus" for the purpose of individual articles. You will need to gain consensus for each individual article or template if you want your preferred approach to prevail--unless of course your preferred approach is found in a policy or MoS page. I know that sounds tedious, but that's the way local consensus works. And alternative is to see if Black Kite is willing to extend the block (it seems from the revision hsitories that BK got involved because that user logged out to continue to edit war while trying to avoid scrutiny. Given they went back to trying to enforce that same edit later, BK might view it as continued disruption. But I wouldn't count on it in this instance. And anyway, it would just delay the inevitable. Better to get consensus; then you're in a stronger position to assert misconduct if the edit warring continues, rather than just demonstrate a difference of opinion between your side and his. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

IP Vandal

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

---

2601:40:C200:507E:4427:56BF:429A:88AD (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All his edits to existing articles qualify as vandalism, but the drafts he created just seem misguided. I cannot find a deletion reason for the drafts, other than WP:NOTHERE. Admin action requested: block and/or deletions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done blocked and creations deleted as G3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 27 June 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 using personal insults and being extremely POV on the talk page

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

---

Claíomh Solais posted this on Talk:Brexit. It is not only extremely POV, but uses "autistic" as an insult. As well as other sanctions in the past, this user was previously banned (earlier this month) for 72 hours for personal attacks towards other editors. I would suggest a longer ban this time. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Incredibly offensive. --Tarage (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That talk page is often used improperly but Claíomh Solais's post is beyond the pale.Smeat75 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"HuffPost, a bourgeois liberal publication from the United States, whose founder, Arianna Huffington, was intellectually groomed at elite British intelligence linked educational establishments." "Using the British media as a source on Russia, is like using Der Sturmer as a source on the Soviet Union." If ever there was a case of not being here to build an encyclopedia... --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one. Still browsing his contributions... "Now, both Fae and Rivertoch are unabashed politically-bias activists in favour of LGBT themes, which they are entitled to do in their spare time, but this should not be brought into the Wikipedia mainspace compromising the encyclopedia. To be honest, I am not impressed at all by their fascist attempt to stop anybody even asking on the talkpage of dubious articles that the Anglo-American narrative on affairs be put under scrutiny" --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Could we get some WP:DIFFs? Not saying it didn't happen or that it's right, but I'd need context before making further decisions. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, in order of mention... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro&diff=847011721&oldid=843999196 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_FIFA_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=845459236 and finally https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=844718094 but really, looking through any of their talk page edits shows an editor with a very clear POV bashing anything and everything that doesn't match it. For someone who hates the west and capitalism as much as he does, it's funny that they are so active on a western website... I'm guessing perhaps a troll based on the use of "muh". --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh and the user page youtube links. Dude sounds like a troll from 4chan's /pol/ board... --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite WP:NOTHERE block

Evidence

I propose an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block of Claíomh Solais. The inappropriate comments earlier were not an isolated incident; this user's edits and commentary have been persistently problematic, WP:FRINGE conspiracizing, with a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism:

Personal attacks on editors/trolling

• Template:Neoconservatism
  • "Your boy Frum" directed at another editor in edit summary
• Ballinlass incident
  • "I don't think you can read very well" directed at editor
• Talk:Brexit
  • Use of term "autistic" as insult
  • Same as above: "a veritable rogues gallery of Blairites, Sorosians, neo-liberals and Liberal Democrats; lepers who anybody with a shed of self-respect wouldn't touch with a barge pole"; "lot of spilt granola"
• Flag of Syria
  • Refers to edit summary to "'Murika/Izz speak"

Inappropriate use of talk pages / axe-grinding / off-topic asides / conspiracy theorizing, including at WP:BLP / failure to understand baseline policies

• In userspace:
  • Inappropriate use of userpage - adding phrases like "Deselect and Purge all Blairites" and "Basically me fending off hordes of Anglocentrists"
• Talk:Leo Varadkar
  • Bizarre conspiracy-theorizing on WP:BLP
• On Anti-gay purges in Chechnya
  • Axe-grinding and failure to assume good faith: Using talk page to posit that reports are "fake news from the United States and British governments" and asserting that editors are "very favourable to 'LGBT'" issues and may find it emotionally gratifying to feel, by proxy, 'persecuted'"
  • Similar: Uses talk page to posit this this is "American fake news invented to demonise the Russian Federation in their information war" (offers no sources to support this claim)
• On Talk:Antisemitism
  • Suggests that anti-semitism is "a term rolled out to support a Jewish ultra-nationalist POV in any incident involving conflict between Jews and non-Jews"
  • Repeatedly suggests that anti-Jewish persecutions before the 19th century cannot be termed "anti-semitism"] (offers no sources to support this claim)
• Talk:Joseph Stalin
  • Unsourced, off-topic rambling, FRINGE promotion: "Anglo-Saxon medias (and their vassals) have a tendency to cast aspersions on any political system which does not adhere to their own defined model and play-book"; "sham multi-party 'parliamentary democracy'"; " Stalin as a dictator is, ultimately, a British capitalist slander"; cites no sources
• Talk:Mary McAleese
  • Bizarre, fringe, unsourced commentary on how a president of Ireland was "British": "We do not hightlight [sic] in the article that Queen's University Belfast, which she attended, is a British university, controlled by British interests and administrated by British people who control the content of what is programmed into the students. And after she had attended that university, she moved south and coincidentally began promoting controvesial changes to Irish culture (advocating liberalism generally, which is a British ideology - in particular, abortion, homosexuality and so on). The 'human rights' meme that she employs constantly is specifically an Anglo-American discourse."
• Talk:George Soros
  • False, WP:BLP-violating claims
  • Reinstating WP:BLP-violating material to talk page after it had been removed.
• Talk:Nicolás Maduro
  • Off-topic aside claiming that the term "homophobia" is "an artificial term created ... to pathologise leaders who are resisting the Anglo-American Empire"; completely irrelevant aside about Arianna Huffington being "intellectually groomed at elite British intelligence linked educational establishments"; bizarre conspirizing: "The United States and the United Kingdom are deadly enemies of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so they have a vested interest in attacking one of the people resisting their machinations through Anglo-approved medias.")
• Meghan Markle
  • Re-inserts into article, after it was removed, a reference to the Jewish faith of subject's ex-husband; makes no attempt to seek consensus
• Talk:David Icke
  • In talk page on article for well-known conspiracy theorist: baselessly claims "tactically deployed claims of 'anti-semitism' against left-leaning figures"
  • Completely irrelevant comment, writing of "phony claims of 'anti-semitism' levelled by the pro-Israel far-right against Jeremy Corbyn and the current Labour Party leadership"
• Talk:Bernie Sanders
  • Irrelevant asides and use of talk pages as a forum: "Sanders has a very dubious record on Israel and anti-imperialism"; "Basically Sanders is whining that the US President is having dialogue with the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a socialist state) and has cried instead that he would prefer better relations with bourgeois liberal Trudeau's British Imperial Dominion of Canada."
• Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup
  • Fringe Nazi-comparison: Compared "the British media" to the Nazi propaganda outlet Der Sturmer
  • Same as above: "the English FA threw a hissy fit" refers to England as "their declining country"; " the medias who are making the biggest attempt to demonise Russia"
• Talk:Donald Trump
  • Baseless/irrelevant comment that "the British have moved against very few US presidents as openly as they have against Trump."

--Neutrality^talk 21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per my evidence above. This user is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support And might I say impressive amount of research for such a short amount of time. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality's evidence. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the editor has shown failure to put aside personal politics for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it quickly became disruptive as presented in the evidence above. Nanophosis (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality's evidence and the user's unblock request. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Those disruptive diffs, taken as a whole, indicate a dedication to an entrenched ideology based on a conspiratorial frame of mind. Much of it reminds me of LaRouche propaganda, although it differs in some respects. The comments about David Icke are truly bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per the amount of research above - We all make stupid comments from time to time myself included .... but the diffs above go above and beyond "an occasional stupid comment" ...., Their unblock request doesn't exactly fill me with much confidence either, I feel topicbanning would be pointless as they're gonna need to be topic banned from quite a lot of pages me thinks and even then they'll wikilawyer over it, Net negative to the project and best all round if they're forcibly shown the door. –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. Seems to be on a mission at variance with creating an encyclopedia. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is closer to trolling then being a useful editor. —JJB^ers 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would close this as consensus to block; however I was at the march in question and hence consider myself WP:INVOLVED. (On a personal note to Claíomh Solais, I am none of these things mentioned in your post, I just don't want to lose my job.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 26 June 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.

Discussion

The userpage content gave me pause. I would not be surprised if the user's edits adhere entirely to an off wiki agenda. Would like to hear back from them, but really.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked independent of the above discussion I've blocked him under "disruptive editing" rather than WP:NOTHERE. The diffs provided above by Neutrality are sufficient evidence of a serious pattern of disruptive editing, which Claíomh Solais would need to address before taking any other action. I'm not as certain about NOTHERE because they have some edits to pre-modern figures that might be useful (if he would cite sources better). I've also gone with "disruptive editing" so that my block is independent of the community consensus regarding NOTHERE. My block could theoretically be appealed without community consensus (not that I see that happening) and should be changed to a NOTHERE block if that's what the consensus turns out to be (for which this is too soon to call). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Good block, thanks. --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't realize I'd had blocked this user twice before already, but it was clear to me that this was coming. Maybe I should have come here to this board last time to present the kind of comprehensive case that Neutrality made, for which I thank them. But this block will no doubt makes a lot of editors' lives just a little bit easier. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just notifying users here that I declined their appeal. I only had to look at a few edits to see for myself an unblock is not warranted here. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question. Now that Claíomh Solais has been indefinitely blocked partly for edits that show "a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism" (see above) I tried to undo the edits he made to the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most notorious anti-semitic forgery in history, but Beyond My Ken won't let me, he has reverted me twice, insisting that Claíomh Solais's additions must stay, and User:FlightTime gave me, not Beyond my Ken, a warning for edit-warring although we have both made two reverts. Why should edits made by an editor with "a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism" be allowed to stand in the article about this notorious antisemitic forgery?Smeat75 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, Smeat75 has misrepresented my position. Here's what I wrote on Flight Time's talk page:

  I take no stance on the edits you reverted, I simply insist that you justify their removal on the basis that they do not improve the article, or that they violated policy, or that they otherwise degraded the article. You cannot remove edits simply because the editor who made them has been blocked, your revert must in itself be justified on the talk page. So far, you have not done that. If you do adequately explain why those edits should be removed, that will be a different story. I'm waiting for you to do that. [162]

  Their response was that the edits could be removed because Claíomh Solais is anti-Semetic:

  "they do not improve the article" because they were written by an editor blocked partly on the basis of edits that demonstrate "" a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism".[163]

  I do not believe this this stands up to scrutiny. If the edits were inherently anti-Semitic in nature, that would be different, but the fact of CS's block in and of itself is not a justification to revert every edit they ever made. My feeling is that Smeat75 really hasn't actually evaluated the material in question [164], and is acting in a knee-jerk fashion. They have not been able, or perhaps willing, to explain with specificity why the material should be removed. [165] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Two other editors have commented on Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Removed additions made to article by editor blocked for being disruptive, one to say that the material in question "could be useful after careful review" of the sourcing, and the other to say that the material seems "appropriate and constructive". I suggest that Smeat75 return to the talk page, where content disputes should be ironed out, and make some valid arguments for removing the material he wishes to revert Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: The edits you reverted were not listed here as disruptive. And I think the biggest problem with Claíomh Solais was the rhetoric in talk pages and edit summaries. It would be best if you discuss each of your proposed edits and gain consensus before making them again. Wot BMK said. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)~

• Not to pile on, but it's worth pointing out that this editors competence in the area of politics is highly dubious: When I corrected them after they conflated European and American liberals along with making the rather bizarre assumption that all liberals are middle class they proceeded to take a phrase I used out of context to pretend a presupposed agreement with me and continue to argue for the inclusion of their own WP:SYNTH. This is a classic tactic of incompetent naval gazers, and not something I would ever expect to see done by a good faith editor with even the slightest level of competence. If any admin is considering granting their inevitable unblock request, please consider a political topic ban as a condition of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to talk about the idea of unblocking Claíomh Solais, specifically dealing with the above closed section. If my understanding of blocks is correct, an admin can make a block, or the community can vote for a block. In this case, both happened at the same time, in which he was blocked while a vote to block was talking place, and then the vote was prematurely closed due to a block solving the issue. But this is a bit of a hangnail in regards to him being unblocked. Reading his talk page, an offer to unblock has been somewhat extended if he accepts five topic bans. While I am not convinced he will take this offer, it does raise the issue of if he even can be unblocked, as I see consensus for a community placed block, even if it was closed before the appropriate amount of time for consensus. Personally, if he does take the offer I'm not sure if I would oppose, but it's something to talk about. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be less inclined to support a community ban in the case of an unblock with five topic bans, to be honest, though I'd have unhesitatingly supported it if I'd seen the discussion before it was closed. Many of those here might feel the same way. It's worth a shot. Even trolls might turn out to be productive under the right circumstances (I frequently troll /pol/ and /b/ so I'm well acquainted with this particular brand of netizen and the occasional glimmer of good in a trollish heart). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, the problem is, even if the above had consensus, it was for a community block not a community ban. A community ban must be appealed to the community (or arbcom) unless otherwise noted. A community block is AFAIK a lot less clear. Since the wording of the request and the comments did not make clear it would need to be treated like a community ban and appealed to the community and it was specifically worded as a community block and not a community ban, it would seem to me it would need to be treated like a normal block and therefore can be appealed to an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

TP access needs removal

Blocked editor - McGriddlesRock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is using their talk page for personal attacks. I notified blocking admin Widr but they are off wikiP at the moment. I don't know if this is an Nsmutte sock or someone else but preventing more of the same would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 07:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

DMacks has taken care of things. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 07:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access

Could an admin look to see if it's appropriate to revoke TPA for User:AlexTylersMail? Thanks. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like the user is fabricating talk page posts as a way to show off the vandalism they've committed, as well as refactoring warnings. Yeah, talk page access revoked. Mz7 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparent campaign to insert spurious population data changes into large numbers of articles

IPv6 addresses from the Comcast address range 2601:601:1700:/48 have expended a huge amount of effort inserting dubious population data into articles on cities in Niger. and other African countries: see Special:Contributions/2601:601:1700::/48 for contributions from this specific IPv6 range. I've done a mass-revert of their changes, and blocked the range for three months, but suspect that they may attempt to continue, and might possibly also have done similar changes in the past from other IP ranges, or under user accounts. Please be on the lookout for other similar activity. -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. This one looks like it might actually be correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maseru&type=revision&diff=847061389&oldid=829355140&diffmode=source ; compare http://www.citypopulation.de/Lesotho.html What's going on here, I wonder? Good hand/bad hand? Or have I been inadvertently reverting good edits because of a few bad ones earlier? I'm clocking off now, but will investigate later. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Un-sourced changes to population figures have been a problem for as long as I remember, and I've been editing for close to 13 years. I've reverted several such cases in the past few days, mainly in Florida places, but also elsewhere. I did revert such a change in an African city yesterday, first edit from the IP, and issued a standard welcome with warning. Today I see that after that the IP edited 73 more articles about places, before being blocked. What bothers me is that I apparently failed to notice that the IP had already edited at least several more articles when I reverted and welcome/warned them. - Donald Albury 12:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Anome: I haven't looked at the validity of the edits yet, but they all appear to have been made from the single /64 (special:contribs/2601:601:1700:1d9d::/64), so the /48 block is too wide. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of them are from the single /64, but when I widened my search, I found some others that had the same editing pattern from the surrounding /48. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice any population data edits outside the /64, but I can say that in the last 3 months, all of the edits outside the /64 are unrelated to those fiddling with population figures. And per Doug's comment below, I didn't find any registered users. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This one: 2601:601:1700:1D9D:E45D:1225:82AB:9AAF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? If you haven't already checked those articles, I will. - Donald Albury 13:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And the first thing I see when I return to my watchlist is the population figures changed without explanation in five articles in 7 minutes by an IP. They had been quiet for almost an hour, so I gave them a welcome/warning. Like I said, a long-running problem. - Donald Albury 13:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked someone recently for the same reason, can't remember the details, sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The sheer level of effort involved in this suggests either someone very committed, or group activity. I suspect some sort of automation may be needed to stop this. Can anyone think of a suitable edit filter incantation to catch these? -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Twitter accounts as redirects

Please see these 500 new redirects. User:R64Q has made over a thousand of these, and I have serious doubts about them--not just their necessity to begin with (I know, redirects are cheap) but also the arbitrariness, since a lot of them, once you leave off the @ sign, involve terms that are also topics (like Ancestry). I've asked the user to cease for the moment since this warrants some discussion, which may end in deletion. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I really think any of these are necessary.. I'd support deleting them all - TNT^❤ 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

<<EC>> Wow. Might I suggest delete @redirects based on @twitter and TBAN from creating redirects? Thoughts?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Template:R from Twitter username exists making them de facto defensible. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Godsy: And I'd think that would great if these were viable search terms. Many are not.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Mass creation of Twitter username redirects. Paine Ellsworth, Steel1943, and I have been discussing (only briefly so far) the matter there. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Onel5969 marked many of these as reviewed, they might want to offer an opinion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with Compassionate727. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 23#@ladygaga. I do not think this is a matter for this venue. I concur with Kusma. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• EC. Delete all the @twitterhandle redirects unless the twitter account has it's own page. There is no policy or logical reason to turn Wikipedia in to a twitter directory. @omanair, @muscatbank? Anyone with a brain knows to search by the organization name not their name as a twitter handle. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict). No one is going to type the @ symbol. I see no purpose for these, although it's a little like redirects for stock symbols. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

further they are being placed in the 903 entry Category:Redirects from Twitter usernames and have a special template. The cat has been around a long time. Companies are often referred to in the press and especially on ticker tapes only by stock symbol so those have some value. These not so much. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Except for about 25 pages the 1000ish pages here are all twitter handles Special:PrefixIndex/@ There is no indication how many a page and my quick count yielded a strange number. I think nearly everything on the list was created by this user. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mass creation of redirects os usually not a good idea. Mass deletion of redirects also usually isn't a good idea. Twitter handle redirects probably don't do a lot of harm, even if they are of little use, which points to keep by RFD precedent. Anyway, deletion should not be handled here, but at the appropriate deletion venue WP:RFD. —Kusma (t·c) 20:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the lot and Support TBAN - Twitter names can easily be changed and if they are that would make these redirects pointless .... and plus anyone with an ounce of common sense would search for example "Rihanna" not "@Rihanna", What next facebook usernames? ...., TBAN would be prevent more of this nonsense. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The existence of Template:R from Twitter username makes these de facto defensible. Furthermore, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 23#@ladygagaredirects. We can formally ask them to stop or face a block pending an rfd or rfc on the matter but I do not think anything else would be fair given the circumstances. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why the actual fuck was that even created ? ..... Well I still support deleting regardless of that template, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because we have a template for something does not change its misapplication in this instance. I think that if we refer participants in that other discussion to this one, the matter might get a more well-round consideration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to throw this out there: I created Template:R from Twitter username. If anyone feels like nominating it for deletion, consider me "neutral" and I will probably not even participate in the discussion, considering the evident possibility of WP:CCC as shown here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In my opinion, Twitter handles can be one of three types. They can be the person's/company's name (@realDonaldTrump); they can be a well-known alternative name (@ladygaga); and finally, they can be something completely random. I support deleting the first and second as useless, and I have no opinion on the third. wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN for a single incident, which is trivial to fix. wumbolo ^^^ 21:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I also don't see this as a behavioral issue but rather a really misguided good faith effort based on a few unusual precedents. Pretty much every company and most BLPs could have a twitter account linked to them here. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A topic ban would be unjustifiable, as the existence of an Rcat is a defense for this, indicating that there at least one point was a consensus for this type of a redirect. As for their actual necessity, I do personally doubt it. I reviewed nearly 300 of them because the existence of an Rcat indicated to me there was some kind of consensus for their usefulness, which I wasn't going to argue with (I'm not a person who can claim any sort of knowledge or experience with anything social media), and it made sense for me to remove them all from the new pages feed, seeing as they didn't require any edits. I would support keeping all because Redirects are cheap, and I don't see anyone searching a Twitter handle, at-sign and all, unless searching for the operator of the account, so there's no room for confusion. However, because these aren't useful, I support a request that R64Q cease making these. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Template:R from Twitter username has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 23#Template:R from Twitter username. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 24#Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Not going to !vote here because of all the forking forking, however if I were to !vote, I would say that these are all good and useful search-term redirects, and yes, people who know that all Twitter usernames begin with an @ sign will not hesitate to type the @ sign into the search field. It's right there on their keyboard, so why wouldn't they type it in? If they search Wikipedia for "Clark Kent", would they not type in a capital C and K? I do even though I know that some search engines are not case-sensitive. And typing in an @ sign is no more difficult than typing in a capital letter. The right pinkie hits the shift key and the left ring finger hits the "2/@" key, and it's done before you know it. So why wouldn't people type in the @ sign?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The linked RfD has been speedily closed (by me) as the nominator did not provide a list of all the redirects nominated, nor were any of them tagged. Having now read this discussion as well it is my firm opinion that any mass nomination of twitter handle redirects as a class will not result in consensus for anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I definitely don't think we need @Rihanna as a redirect but if the Twitter handle is different from the name of the person/thing it could be useful. This is a case-by-case sort of thing (even though most of the redirects created are not useful in my opinion) and this is not worth spending too much time on. Redirects are cheap. Although the indiscriminate mass-creation of these shouldn't be continued, and it hasn't been (so far.) The Moose 11:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Godsy has invoked IAR to undo my speedy keep closure, and has listed all the nominated redirects but has declined to tag them (citing a lack of capacity to do so). I have now recommended there that another administrator speedily close the mass nomination. We do not need three or four (at least) concurrent discussions about the same thing, and given this and the other discussions consensus for a mass deletion is very unlikely to say the least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • As I said there: Now that the rfd discussion has a static list and because it only targets the ones recently created, as opposed to as a class, I believe it is superior to the other discussions (at least the ones I am aware of). Anyhow, out of time, I'll be back this evening. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Another quick thought: Ideally, all the current discussions should be closed and a proper request for comment started regarding the suitability of the redirects as a class by setting forth guidance options, e.g. always appropriate, only appropriate if mentioned in article, etc. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to stop twitter and other social media handle redirects

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Proposal to stop twitter and other social media handle redirects

 – discussion fork

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

My proposal was first moved to a Wikiproject and then closed because the template was sent for deletion discussion. The main point of the proposal was to delete nearly all @twitterhandle redirects - the thrust of the discussion above. The template is a minor part as it would be rarely used after the redirects are removed. Nearly all the redirects in question are arguably recently created implausable redirects that could be dealt with as a group by this discussion. What this sequence of moves and closes leaves is no proposed solution to the problem raised by Drimes. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Legacypac, thanks--above I saw calls for a topic ban and stuff like that, but that's not what I came here for. Whatever way the community wants to decide is fine with me: I was not seeking a solution related to the editor as some behavioral issue. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the total absence of any arguments for deleting the template (all the deletion arguments applied to the category), I've speedy-closed the discussion at TFD; anyone is welcome to start a discussion at CFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Mary Hopkin

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor is repeatedly reinserting content into Mary Hopkin, against the consensus of a talk page discussion. The editor has failed to properly engage with the talk page discussion. I raised the issue at dispute resolution, where reporting the issue at WP:ANI was suggested. I have today reverted the IP editor's content again, with a note on the article talk page, but this was rapidly reverted by 27.131.59.42. There is also a short exchange on my user talk page. The main chronology is:

• 2 June 2018, 50.247.98.197, →‎Early singing career: added 1970 TV series
• 5 June 2018, Verbcatcher, Started talk page discussion
• 6 June 2018, Verbcatcher, Replace detailed listings of TV programs with a paragraph, see Talk#Mary Hopkin in the Land of...
• 6 June 2018, 50.247.98.197, reinstated details of Hopkin's BBC series broadcast in 1970 and repeated in 1971.
• 6-11 June 2016, Ongoing talk page discussion
• 16 June 2018, Verbcatcher, Roll back to my previous version, following discussion at Talk#Mary Hopkin in the Land of...
• 16 June 2018, 210.19.117.130, →‎Discography: reinstated section
• 26 June 2018, Verbcatcher, See request for discussion on talk page
• 26 June 2018, 27.131.59.42, Undid revision 847605947 by Verbcatcher (talk)reinstated tv series

I think this is disruptive editing by an unregistered editor (presumably one person). Is semi-protection of Mary Hopkin appropriate? Otherwise what should be done to resolve this issue? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Article semied two weeks to draw IP back to discussing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The disruptive editing is by the troll Verbcatcher who is bullying MULTIPLE editors. If you look at the history, you will see the editors aren't even in the same country, let alone being one person, so they have presumed wrong in their bullying. This is a classic example of an editor who considers themself amongst the wiki elite not getting their own way, so they keep harassing and bullying until they get their own version of an article. Well done to all those other wiki elites who have supported the troll Verbcatcher in their bullying. Wikibullier further becomes an even more miserable place where the bullying elites win at all costs, no matter how relevant an edit may have been or how it enhanced an article. The bullies MUST stick together at all costs. Doubtless a block will now be imposed on my IP address. Good luck to you all. Bullies of the wiki world unite. 27.131.59.42 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 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 breached 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.

---

I am concerned that NEBChops may be a compromised account per the sudden activity on their userpage. I might just be over-reacting, but would like someone else to take a look at this. Home Lander (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Compared to their edit history, it seems very possible. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 27 June 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 Vandalism of Hurricane Names

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

---

I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if this is vandalism, but 216.237.237.226 has been changing content at 1978 Pacific hurricane season (see history) through rapid-fire minor edits to the page. Most edits appear to be changing the names of the storms, although one edit changed the word "disturbance" to "INDEED" (?). Could another editor or admin keep an eye on this? Thanks, Nanophosis (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 'em for a week, but this has gone stale. You might want to report at WP:AIV next time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:37, 26 June 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.

Troll genrewarring by IP

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

---

• 71.85.27.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP's sole edits over the last few hours have been a constant stream of non-stop, mass, unsourced genrewarring to a variety of articles despite several warnings. The IP is obviously just trolling in their genre choices; in one edit, the user classified one song as a R&B song, and later changed it to a soul/alternate rock song, and even later to a folk rock song. Would an administrator look at the contributions and issue a short-term block if appropriate? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited for over 12 hours, so a block would be stale in my view. If they start up again, let me know and I'll see if my BFG9000 banhammer still works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 26 June 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:77.119.130.155 Disruptive editing on actresses

The following discussion is closed. 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 has disruptively edited articles related to actresses, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Ingrid Bergman, and Meryl Streep. I'm not sure what this user intends, but it is a problem. He seems to be making minor "corrections" that have absolutely no need to be done. Funplussmart (talk) 01:01, 26 June 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.

Cardiff and Blackwood area genre warrior -- rangeblock requested

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

---

Since at least October 2017,[166] someone from the general area of Cardiff and Blackwood in Wales has been genre-warring in music articles. The most recently active IP ranges are Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:8A1A:7200:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:1A3E:5D00:0:0:0:0/64, the latter having a longer history of disruption. Can we get a rangeblock or two? Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:EEng#EEng's_half-serious_list_of_topics_on_which_WP_should_just_drop_all_coverage_as_not_worth_the_drama. When we're done with pro wrestling and Romanian football, this one's next. EEng 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Any serious responses will be thanked. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet Both ranges blocked for three months. Swarm ♠ 07:40, 28 June 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 was serious, for the record. EEng 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

IP from Manchester, UK persistently vandalising Little Mix discography article

I'm not sure what can be done about this person, short of making the article permanently protected against any IP edits – it's obviously the same person as all the vandalism follows the same pattern (changing the discography to fake names, chart positions and dates... usually set in the future), and the IPs all geolocate to the Greater Manchester area of England. But the IPs are always changing, so I'm guessing a range block is going to be impossible.

The first edit was ten months ago [167] and it's been going on sporadically ever since – in the last two weeks the article has been vandalised eight times [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174],[175], so you can see it's happening every day or two. The article has already had two temporary page protects, and is currently under pending changes review, but none of that has deterred the editor from constant vandalism. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve upgraded the protection to semi, for the duration of three months. That should do it. Swarm ♠ 22:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Kent IP rangeblock 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.

---

Relative to this case, a new rangeblock needs to be placed on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:119B:8000:0:0:0:0/64. This person has also been blocked on a number of IP4 addresses, with Special:Contributions/86.164.74.139 being the most recent. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Still going at it... Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month. It'd probably help if you included a few diffs that show obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 25 June 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.

Emercoin

The following discussion is closed. 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 article was recently deleted at AfD. Someone is obviously organising a campaign to spam WP:REFUND with requests for it to be restored as we've had ten requests in the last hour. It would be good if some other people could keep an eye out for them. I've just been reverting the recent ones as they're duplicates and pages deleted at AfD don't qualify for restoration at WP:REFUND anyway. Hut 8.5 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:REFUND has been semi'd. If problems resume after it expires, I'd be happy to reprotect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 25 June 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.

Block needed for WP:NOTHERE editor "Elman Həsənli"

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

---

Elman Həsənli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The typical stuff. Account created recently, on a single purprose mission, spreading ethno-nationalist unsourced nonsense throughout numerous articles. Received numerous warnings, never bothered to respond to any;[176]

• Adds the Azerbaijani transliteration to a historic entity not related to Azerbaijan, without edit-summary; [177]
• Huge copy-vio on the History of the Middle East article, without edit-summary/attribution. Of course, he added a pseudo-historic twist to it as well (claiming the Ilkhanate as "Azerbaijani"); [178]
• Adds the Azerbaijani spelling to a non-Azerbaijani ethnic group, no edit summary;[179]
• Adds the Azerbaijani spelling to a historic ruler in India, no edit summary, no source; [180]
• Unsourced addition to the Turkification article, no edit summary; [181]
• Tries to claim historic rulers of Syria as being of "Azerbaijan", no source no edit summary; [182]
• Removes sourced content without edit-summary from the Azerbaijani language article; [183]
• Changed Turkish spelling into Azerbaijani, no edit summary; [184]
• Adds the Syrian Turkmen and the Iraqi Turkmen to the Template:Azerbaijani tribes, in order to claim them as "Azerbaijanis"; [185]

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE, just check his contribs, huge amount of POV-editing (and pro-azeri nationalist edits). Best Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Has not edited since June 18.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:03, 25 June 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 content dispute

The following discussion is closed. 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 , all admins , please look into this carefully. There might be content dispute at Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5) with an IP who is reverting edits by pending changes reviewers. Kpgjhpjm 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I semi protected for a couple of days. Perhaps they can decide should be preferred.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:23, 25 June 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.

BernardZ disruptive 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.

---

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

This user has made many unexplained edits in the past few months; in fact, most edits have no edit summary. Some are incorrect and have been reverted: [186]. Yet the user undoes the revert, sometimes only partially: [187]. User has altered quotations: [188], and again undoes the revert: [189]. User has been warned several times, but is unresponsive and has blanked own talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced many of the same issues with this editor. For example, here he modifies a different direct quotation. See my recent reverts for a whole bunch of reversions of dubious copy edits. Most of the user's edits are copy edits, that sometimes mangle the grammar and change correct English idioms into wrong ones. That is disruptive. The editor further shows no indication of wishing to end the disruptive editing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Another example: here BernardZ introduced a grammatical error, the edit was reverted, then BernardZ reverted that. This happened after I warned the editor of possible sanctions if he does not use more care. (That post from the use4 talk page has subsequently been removed by the editor.) I think a community ban from copy editing is warranted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is yet another change to a direct quote, again after my warning. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban on copy editing. Editor shows alarmingly bad judgment and poor command of English. He has ignored entreaties to stop, and has even opted to blank his talk page. This is clear disruption. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban on copy editing. Looking back at his talk page just before he recently blanked it, I see that this has been going on for more than two years and he never once replied to any of the warnings placed there.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support action of some sort. User was just here a little over a month ago, and I observed then that there seemed to be a serious lack of competence in some of their editing. Grandpallama (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I have blocked this user indefinitely per WP:CIR. The fact that they are continuing to perform incompetent copyedits while this discussion is going on without even attempting to engage as is required is outrageous, and leaves me with no faith that this user is willing or able to respond to feedback and contribute as a competent, good faith member of the community. Any admin is free to lift this block in favor of the above topic ban, but I will state for the record that I think it's a competence issue and that unblocking would be a waste of time. Swarm ♠ 08:05, 28 June 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 Wxzapghy

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

---

Wxzapghy (talk · contribs) removes templates including maintenance and Proposing article for deletion tag on Indian Armour, which is not comply with EV since it talked about mythical story, Mahabharat and then historical facts. Also, the article has 18.0% copyvios and unreliable reference. I drop the issue here and request admin to handle. Thanks. --AntanO 09:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you identify the source(s) of copyvios? You can report those to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. PROD is just what its name says, a proposal to delete. If anyone objects to the proposal, it is dropped. You can nominate the article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if you want to pursue removing the article from Wikipedia. As for the removal of the maintenance templates, I see you did warn him about premature removal of maintenance templates. If he again removes maintenance templates without explanation, we can further address that with him. - Donald Albury 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Fujiko Pro

The following discussion is closed. 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:Fujiko Pro has claimed on the article on Perman (manga) that he would take legal action if the page were to be "recreated." He has a name that indicates that he may be part of the company by that name. Apparently, he had previously blanked the page. He described this edit by claiming that it was resolving "copyright violations." After this, he made his first legal threat. After that threat was removed, he threatened legal action once again. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the links you want are this and this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user and posted a message to them. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 27 June 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:Perman Official

Perman Official (talk · contribs) posted this on my talk page this morning. Though not a legal threat, the language use is similar to the language used by the account above and is clearly intended to intimidate. As a side note, this came after I reverted 4 edits coming from Pakistani IPs and is clearly a reference to those edits.[190][191][192][193] —Farix (t | c) 10:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have username-blocked this account and protected the article for a week. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats from IP

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

---

See [194] from 47.149.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Home Lander (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to make some garbage up for your vandalism, at least make it more believable than it's under USDA regulation. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

They're trying to hide the fact that the actress is really a carrot? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That IP is such a kidder! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 28 June 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.

Odd new 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.

---

User:Domecroak appears to be a single purpose account. This is the only edit from the account as of writing. The edit is also very odd in nature as it a revert of an IP talk page. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 09:00, 27 June 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.

Revenge 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.

---

Following the semi-protection of Mary Hopkin (see above), the same IP editor (at 27.131.59.42) had added comments on my user talk page and elsewhere – I can live with this. The same editor has taken more disruptive action by reverting several of my edits to unreleated articles, in what I take to be a revenge attack, see [195]. Is a block appropriate? Can an admin do a bulk rollback of these edits? Verbcatcher (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I mass-reverted their edits. Home Lander (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And I blocked the IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:33, 27 June 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.

LudicrousEditor

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

---

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

This editor seems to be primarily focused on adding personal details to biographies, sometimes BLPs. Their first edit [196] was to add unsourced information about the minor children of a businessman, and that pattern describes many of their other edits. Some are sourced only to the WP:DAILYMAIL, such as this diff about Spiro Agnew. They also regularly use the "minor edit" tag for edits which are not minor. They don't seem to be responding to the multiple warnings on their user-talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't the recently-blocked Iistal have a penchant for adding all sorts of this kind of crap to BLP's? Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know about that, but this sees like a typical “fly under the radar” strategy where a user gets lots of warnings and just ignores them and never speaks to anyone, so I’ve issued a block for both the editing and the refusal to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 June 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.

Ali mjr

@Ali mjr: The user has been attempting to add largely unsourced POV-ridden content to the Alireza Beiranvand article and has been reverted (twice by me and once by another editor), resulting in a final warning on their talk page. The user continues to readd the content..

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. (N.B. I have 'unapproved' the most recent edit, as it does contain one source, although it doesn't come close to satisfying WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:OR). Nzd (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I just involved myself by reverting. Someon uninvolved could block for 3rr or protect the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave them a 3rr warning. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rafasyah Orvala Sukoco

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

---

• Rafasyah Orvala Sukoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor's edits is good faith but they always moved a page to official/full name and seem to not understand WP:COMMONNAME. The editor has warned several times but never care to explain why they edit that way. The last warning this editor received is in 7 June 2018 but still make disruptive editing until 21 June 2018. Hddty. (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:CIR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that the editor itself never respond in the talk page. Even my message in id.wiki never got replied. I ask the editor there why they add unsourced non-Latin script on biographies in id.wiki (and also in en.wiki), we even had a discussion about this at WikiProject Indonesia. Hddty. (talk) 17:44, 27 June 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.

2600:8800:1880:91e:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26

The following discussion is closed. 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, 2600:8800:1880:91e:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26 had an issue with me archiving talkpage discussions too soon, I moved the discussion to my talkpage[197] and stated I'll leave 3-6 months worth (or more) .... but instead of the IP furhter discussing this or accepting my offer if you like they've instead decided to go to various talkpages and start RFC on my "archive frequencies" [198][199],
Not entirely sure how to go about it - I've admitted a few were archived too soon and stated I'll certainly slow down and be more careful...., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the Twitter RfC because it was improper. I've left alone the other. Unusual behavior for an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Agreed Bbb23, Not sure why but I have a slight feeling the IP is a logged out editor ... could be a sock I suppose... –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be super cool if Davey could avoid leveling personal attacks at me: such as his edit summary, another edit summary, and speculation on whether I'm a sockpuppet above. And we can all do without uncivil profanity directed at me. I would say that once I raised this dispute with him he went from mild denial to 100% belligerent and combative, in less than an hour. I stepped away from the computer so that the dispute could cool down and here we are at ANI. Totally unnecessary for a content dispute, where my major actions have involved seeking dispute resolution as prescribed which were destroyed in favor of seeking punitive measures here. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 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.

Vandalized template - not sure what is going on

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

---

Template:Pending Changes backlog-defcon appears to have been vandalized. I've cleaned up what is directly in the source code, but can't find where the rest of it is coming from. I'm seeing some stuff in a non-English language followed by some gmail addresses and phone numbers after the backlog level. Aspening (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Been cleaned up, vandal was this IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.89.218.234 --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) It was caused by an edit to Template:Pending Changes backlog/descriptions-short which I have undone. I have warned the IP which made the edit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've checked all subpages of the two pending changes backlog templates and they appear to be clean. Aspening (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

IP insists on premature election result

Ridwan Kamil is projected to win a recent election for governor, but so far results have not been official and media reports only rely on "quick counts" done by pollsters, e.g. [200] or [201]. While such polls are historically reliable, IMHO Wikipedia shouldn't use wording that imply the result is official, e.g. "governor-elect" or "won a landslide victory". Accordingly, RSes are still not calling Governor-elect, but "winner according to quick counts" or something like that. I tried rewording the article to this effect ([202], [203]) but an IP user keeps reverting back. Plus, the IP uses a very confusing citation, like "<ref>Taslimson Foundation</ref>", which is impossible to verify. I don't want to get into infinite revert, so I'm hoping an admin could a version without implying official result (e.g. [204]) and then semi-protecting the article to avoid IP abuses. HaEr48 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that must be discussed at Talk:Ridwan Kamil, but has not yet been discussed. Go there first and work to develop consensus. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User Obi2canibe

The following discussion is closed. 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 Obi2canibe is casting aspersions and making personal attacks on me.

I asked him several times to stop attacking me and to comply with the Wikipedia policies WP:AGF and WP:TALKNO, in talk pages and on his own talk page, without result. See more details here User talk:Obi2canibe#You are casting aspersions and making personal attacks.

He's a valuable editor, but I think he he has conceptual errors sometimes. I want he to stop the accusations and not judge me in bad faith. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page section listed above makes it quite clear that Obi2canibe is not going to stop. I think a block might be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

My comments were criticism of BallenaBlanca's behaviour, not personal attacks or bullying. I'm sorry if BallenaBlanca has construed them as such. WP:AGF isn't a shield shield against criticism nor is it a tool to suppress discussion. My views on BallenaBlanca aren't borne out of any personal prejudice but as a result of observing his contributions in Catalan articles. e.g.

• Quim Torra - Adding unnecessary references in opening sentence simply because the references contain negative content/headlines about this WP:BLP.
• Talk:Carles Puigdemont - Introducing fringe theories about the subject's ethnicity.
• Quim Torra - Removing politician from opening sentence from the head of regional government and elected member of parliament, and using a forum discussion to justify the removal.
• List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars - Removing Catalonia from the list as it wasn't properly cited but leaving three other Spanish regions even though they were in a similar situation.
• Catalonia - Vandalising infobox.
• Category:Catalan engineers - Abusing a navigation template which has resulted in this category being placed in wrong parent categories.
• Iñigo Urkullu - Violating MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.

BallenaBlanca has been involved in numerous content disputes with several other editors on Catalan topics (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). There are numerous others, just go through his contributions. And this is the fourth time in the last six months that BallenaBlanca has been involved in a ANI discussion, all arising from content disputes on Catalan topics (1, 2, 3).

BallenaBlanca is showing many of the signs of gaming the system but doing so in a civil manner. For example, he has changed (see contributions) the opening sentence of numerous Catalan/Basque biographies by narrowly interpreting MOS:OPENPARABIO to mean that only citizenship can be used in the lede. The spirit of this policy is clearly different, as shown by the outcome of this RFC.

All of this has led me to conclude that BallenaBlanca is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather push a particular WP:POV. I'm sorry if me calling a spade a spade upsets BallenaBlanca.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Obi2canibe is very senior contributor has been around since 2008 with 35K edits and has been editing for over 10 years and major content contribuor. The issues above are more on content rather then personal.Content disputes are not personal ones and clearly cannot see any incivilty or personal attack from anybody.The content issues can be resolved in talk page or Other boards if unresolved in talk page. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Obi2canibe: I don't doubt your stated intention to simply call out bad behavior as you see it. However, the concept of WP:NPA is fairly straightforward: do not make personal commentary. This still applies even if you think you're legitimately calling out bad behavior. You should compile your evidence and make your case here. I commend you for doing just that here, but reviewing your diffs as an uninvolved observer, I don't agree with your assessment, or at least, I don't see the problem you're describing. For example, the most serious accusation, that of "vandalism", was the removal of an unsourced claim that Catalonia is a sovereign country. There's totally a possibility that the user has a POV influencing them, but if that kind of thing is unambiguously vandalism to you, your own POV may be skewing your assessment of their behavior. In sum, please cut it out, and if you want to make a complaint, start a new thread and make a proposal with diffs. As is, though, your complaint is not sufficient IMO. Swarm ♠ 09:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:Liviut11101

The following discussion is closed. 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:Liviut11101 is making legal threats at Liviu Tipurita. Edit summary read, "Once again, I'm removing the year of my birth as it infringes my right to privacy under the new European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation as it constitutes personal identifiable information (PII) of sensitive nature. Should you continue to publish any reference to my date of birth, I shall lodge a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and start legal action against Wikipedia." Edwardx (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

He shouldn't be making those threats, but you shouldn't be continually restoring the date without clear sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You might also wish to review WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY before trying to restore the use Companies House records as a source. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for the legal threats. Do not restore the date of birth without gaining talk page consensus. Please read WP:DOB. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly was a sockpuppet of WinFilms, who made identical legal threats with the same article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WinFilms was blocked as a group account. The same person, probably the BLP subject, then created an individual account. That part was OK. The legal threats weren't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to leave out the DOB unless it appears in a secondary source. I would leave it out in any event just because of the whole identity theft concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It is currently sourced to the pair of statements "Născut și crescut în Sibiu, Liviu Tipuriță s-a mutat în Marea Britanie la vârsta de 20 de ani pentru a studia regia de film" and "Am plecat în Marea Britanie în ‘90, pentru că voiam să fac film și nu aveam încredere în școala românească de atunci." from [205], which looks like synthesis to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonathan A Jones, but I do not see how that would be WP:SYNTH. In an interview he states that he was 20 in 1990, and we can use {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}} to deduce possible birth years and a current age range. That is what that template is for, and its use is widespread on Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx I think it depends on the quality of the source. I am not sure why WP:SYNTH is relevant here as we are not presenting any arguments here; and I am dubious about identity theft as a concern in this very case. For me this looks more like a BLP subject wants to maintain control of their page, but I think removing DOB is fine if no quality sources other than a pair of interviews are available. Alex Shih (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih The two quotes are from the same interview. I agree that it is not an ideal source. I also agree that identity theft is a red herring here. In my experience with engaging with our readers through editathons and elsewhere, two of the leading issues on BLPs are the lack of a photo of the subject (not an issue here), and the lack of any sense of how old the subject is. Of course, we should not include a full ddmmyyyy DOB unless the sourcing is solid, and I remove uncited ddmmyyyy DOBs frequently. It is reasonable that we should seek to give our readers some sense of a subject's year of birth and/or age. It is frustrating when a subject or their representatives try to edit a well-intentioned NPOV biography to something more hagiographical, and I do not respond well to threats, but in this case I am okay if others think we should remove the year of birth and age info from the lead and infobox, as long as we can leave the "Early life" as it is. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 27 June 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 editing, legal threats

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

---

See [206], among other disruptive edits from 119.17.33.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Home Lander (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Pure advocacy editing. In this diff they violated every policy we have including BLP by making it appear that a person said something that they did not. Please indef. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's an IP, so it'll have to be temp. Home Lander (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This IP appears to be static from the start of the year with a consistant editing around vegan and other woo-bullshit. Suggest blocking it indef. If it was dynamic it would likely have changed by now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

IPs can't be indeffed. But 331dot has since blocked him/her for six months. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:17, 29 June 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.

Big rangeblock? for banned user Sugar Bear

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

---

Is it possible to set a rangeblock to stop banned User:Sugar Bear? He was indeffed recently as User:TheRealBoognish, and he's been using IPs from Oregon and North Carolina as well as others that geolocate to the US in general. One from Oregon was 74.42.44.222, used during August–September 2017, and the other was 74.42.44.210, blocked yesterday by Ponyo. Also blocked yesterday was Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172, who was getting into a giant revert battle with me. Below is a list of similar IPs that might be blocked as a range. Can we do this without too much collateral damage? Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• June 22, 2018 – 166.182.84.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 19, 2018 – 166.182.84.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 18, 2018 – 166.182.84.196 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 16, 2018 – 166.182.82.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 12, 2018 – 166.182.85.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 11, 2018 – 166.182.84.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 10, 2018 – 166.182.82.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 5, 2018 – 166.182.84.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 4, 2018 – 166.182.81.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 3, 2018 – 166.182.81.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 26, 2018 – 166.182.84.38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 20, 2018 – 166.182.84.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 15, 2018 – 166.182.83.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 14, 2018 – 166.182.86.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 13, 2018 – 166.182.82.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 12, 2018 – 166.182.82.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 8, 2018 – 166.182.81.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 7, 2018 – 166.182.80.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 6, 2018 – 166.182.86.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 3, 2018 – 166.182.86.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 1, 2018 – 166.182.84.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 27, 2018 – 166.182.85.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 19, 2018 – 166.182.84.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 18, 2018 – 166.182.80.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 17, 2018 – 166.182.81.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 14, 2018 – 166.182.82.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• April 13, 2018 – 166.182.80.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 22, 2018 – 166.231.21.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 21, 2018 – 166.229.22.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 20, 2018 – 166.228.13.136 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 20, 2018 – 166.233.27.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 20, 2018 – 166.231.125.174 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 19, 2018 – 166.231.212.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 19, 2018 – 166.223.171.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 19, 2018 – 166.225.182.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 14, 2018 – 166.231.217.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 13, 2018 – 166.225.122.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• January 13, 2018 – 166.221.164.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 29, 2017 – 166.225.173.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2, 2017 – 166.233.204.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Torchiest and I call the big one bitey have tangled with this person. Care to comment? Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll just add some history. SB originally created his account in 2005 under the name Ibaranoff24. He was blocked a few times under that name, including an indefinite block in January 2009 that was rescinded. He was doing quite a bit of sock puppeting around that time too. In January 2010 he had his account name changed, but then ran into more trouble in mid-2010 until he was finally banned entirely. Ever since then, he's been making a string of sock puppets that fly under the radar for various lengths of time before being discovered. TheRealBoognish was just the latest in a long line. Considering he's been banned for eight years and keeps coming back to fight the same fights over and over, I don't see any reason to believe his behavior will ever change. I don't know how damaging a range block would be, but again, I have no doubt that he will continue his behavior into perpetuity otherwise. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Torchiest and Binksternet: Just entering a few of these IPs into the calculator generated 166.182.86.116/9 which is too large of a range to be blocked, or even generate contributions. Home Lander (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Binksternet and Torchiest: All the edits since April are from 166.182.85.139/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which at first glance produces a staggering number of edits and would appear to have a lot of collateral. Upon just a bit of further inspection, though, virtually all of those edits appear to come from this banned user. I'll block the range for a month, but please do not hesitate to re-report if and when they pop back up. Will also block the 74.42.44.222/28 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range. Swarm ♠ 10:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 29 June 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.

Hiromi kirishima

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears to be a long-term SPA here to promote himself and his YouTube channel: he has previously been warned for edit warring a number of times and he's just recreated the twice-deleted-at-AfD article about himself, Paul Pluta, for a third time. He's now revert-warring without discussion again accusing the Crime and Corruption Commission of being a star chamber in Wikipedia voice (his own article has the redlinked "Star Chamber Survivors" category).

This account has not made a single edit unrelated to self-promotion since 2010 (lots of stuff like this), and even before that did not exactly display a constructive attitude to editing.

I think it might be time to ban this account and speedy and salt Paul Pluta, because I don't doubt he's just going to remove the speedy deletion tag. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor blocked. Page deleted. Remaining self-promotional edit reverted. Couldn't though figure out the issue at Crime and Corruption Commission and will trust the regular editors of the article to handle that. Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 29 June 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 attack by user:Btphelps

The following discussion is closed. 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 made a mistake when moving his drafts to draftspace, and I moved it back to his userspace. It got deleted for copyvio. Now he posts on my talkpage calling me a meddlesome twat. Can an admin take action? Regards, -- » Shadowowl | talk 08:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "twat" was inaccurate. "Pinhead" is more like it. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 08:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself be making repeated personal attacks here.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• For others: this is the fallout from here. Btphelps was hosting multiple copyvio articles in their userspace and this only flagged up when Shadowowl moved them to draftspace without asking Btphelps. The subsequent extra eyes spotted the violations. They were moved back then deleted for being copyvios. Btphelps is clearly miffed because their draft articles have been nuked, but ultimately that is their own fault for having clearly copied material. Lashing out at the person who (unwittingly) brought it to light isnt going to do anything. I would also point out Btphelps you should probably get over the owenership issues you seem to have. While it is a courtesy that generally people's userpages and subpages are left alone, every time you hit submit on an edit, that material no longer belongs to you. Any draft article in your sandbox can be edited by others, moved to mainspace, moved to draftspace etc. There is no restriction in policy or guidance to prevent that. The latest consensus that addresses this is here Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be good lessons here for everyone involved. When drafting using copyrighted material it might be better to use an offline editor. No administrative action is needed. The kerfuffle was enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:27, 29 June 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 conflict of interest from IP

Looking at the edits from 217.138.9.166 (talk) to Frontline (social work), I have a suspicion that the editor is associated with the subject. This IP has been consistently editing this page over the last couple of weeks, with no edits to any other pages in that time. Doing a WHOIS confirms the editor is based in London, the same place where Frontline is based. Already put up a notice on their talk page about the possible conflict of interest, but they have provided no response and are continuing to edit. TheConnorMan (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

First I'd say you haven't given them enough time to respond before coming here. However I'm mostly concerned here by the copyright violations of them taking content from their site and pasting it to Wikipedia with little change. So I'm going to have to revert a load of their edits, COI or not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PreciesJJ adding unsourced info again

• PreciesJJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2019 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PreciesJJ is repeatedly adding unsourced information to the above article. The user is insisting on updating the qualifiers for the tournament after each event is played. This violates WP:OR because the Order of Merit is updated on a monthly basis while PreciesJJ updates it after every tournament played. On my talk page PreciesJJ insists that "If you really want to check it is right you need to do the maths yes. But they dont have to, because it is right". After warning the editor not to update the article with unsourced info PreciesJJ did so again.

The user was slapped with a 48 hour block for violating 3RR back on 22 December 2017 and a 2 week ban on 26 December 2017 for persistently making disruptive edits. PreciesJJ has continued their behaviour. Dougal18 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Order of Merit is updated by the PDC after every weekend, I update the page only a couple of hours earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreciesJJ (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@PreciesJJ: Well, update it a few hours later then, after PDC updates the Order of Merit, and - problem solved. byteflush _Talk 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

USER Doprendek

Doprendek (talk · contribs)

First of all I do a lot of category page editing. Here's a view of my last 500 and that goes back to late April.

This morning I found a whole group of categories that were overcategorized. Namely 'Hotels established in 1970' were both in establishments in 1970 and companies established in 1970. Hotels established in 1970 is in Hospitality companies established in 1970, so the other two categories are overcategorization. I fixed the category page[207]

Editor Doprendek created[208]] the 1970 Hospitality category, added it to the Hotels established page but didn't remove the establishments in 1970. When it should have removed. This editor actually knows this. See their recent edit here[209] for example

Anyway I made similar fixes to Hotels established in categories here[210] here[211] and here[212]. I also fixed other miscategorization by Doprendek here[213], here[214], and here[215] for a few examples.

Doprendek reverted my edit[216] to Pharmaceutical companies established in 1970 with the edit summary- "Undid revision 847873358 by WilliamJE (talk) Don't be a creepy stalker. I was following practices established by others, but you are leaving those others intact and targeting categories created by me. I do many of these and I try to be consistent with existing practice. When mine are changed and totally analogous ones created by others are left intact, thereby CREATING inconsistencies, that is not good faith editing."

I reverted to the right version with the edit summary explaining the page was overcategorized. Doprendek reverted again[217] with a edit summary similar to the first one above.

I reverted again and addressed him at the talk page[218]. Where I addressed his accusations against me. He reverted again[219] I reverted and came here. BTW that isn't the first time I've gone to this editor's talk page about his category page work. Check here[220].

This is a case of WP:DISRUPT. He is reverting my edits not because they are incorrect but because there are other category pages done like this and that I'm targeting him. He accuses me of stalking and not following WP:AGF

First of all, I have fixed numerous Pharmaceutical companies established in year. Here are the 3 most recent examples. I've worked on them too. Here are 1[221], 2[222], 3 examples[223] since May. That's in my last 500 category page edits. If you go a little further back to my next 500, In April 2018 I fixed such categories over 10 times.

So I have been fixing category pages routinely.

I fix wrong categorizing all the time. Banned editor Look2See1 I went and fixed his mistakes. I addressed issues on his talk page here[224], and here[225].

My behavior isn't perfect but the reasons for reverting is clearly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not that what I was doing to the page was wrong.

So when I see an editor making wrong categorizing I look at their edits for more of same. Doprendek is not being singled out. He — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Category: Truncated yet TLDR ANI postings. EEng 17:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• WilliamJE (talk · contribs) I am being brought up on charges, or whatever this is called, for multiply reverting only one serial change in one article out of 11 similar ones [note--more since] made in a very short time by WilliamJE. I made this one change because I could find no other way of expressing how my disagreement (yeah, I was pissed off) in Wikipedia's all-but-impossible-to-understand dispute system. (And FWIW I don't know what the hell is going on here, or whether I am acting "correctly.") Now, WilliamJE tries to characterize this as essentially a categorization disagreement. Admittedly, that's what it *should* be. I don't even disagree with the changes--if they were meant to be applied consistently and in good faith. But these actions were clearly targeting my edits only (which is creepy in itself), as was admitted above by WilliamJE, but for purposes of Wikipedia actually make the categorization, and by extension Wikipedia, WORSE by introducing inconsistency across serial analagous categories, in this case those involving years. When I create categories (and I do a lot) I am not some moron or vandal or whatever WilliamJE tries to insinuate. I am simply following existing practice in those categories--I go to an existing category of the same type is a different year and copy it over. A (I would think obvious) reason for doing this is that it is better to be consistent across related categories, like years, rather than intermittently wrong, creating different little inconsistent blocks of differently-formatted categories depending upon whether one was in, say, the 1920s vs. the 1990s, or just based on whoever edited it last. And having the category formats skip year to year makes even less sense. The reason for this is that the user or editor at least sees a CONSISTENT system of categorization, and, one would think importantly, any corrections to the scheme can be agreed upon and changed universally. Or boldly changed by one user--for previous changes by ALL editors in analagous categories--again, for the purpose of actually improving related categories in Wikipedia, rather than targeting one user's intermittent edits. One would also think that is both more democratic and less contentious then targeting one editor's user history. (Hey, did I mention how creepy that is?) Doprendek (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• This looks very much to me like a content dispute over categorization, and not so much a behavioral problem. It should probably be handled at Wikipedia talk: Categories or some other appropriate venue rather than here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Tupac214

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

---

Any reason Tupac214 (talk · contribs) is not indefinitely blocked yet? I contacted Alexf for an update on the matter, and there is still no indefinite block on this user. I don't even see the point of notifying this user of this WP:ANI thread, protocol be damned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 1 July 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.

Carles Puigdemont revisited

We had an Talk:Carles Puigdemont#RFC on nationality for Carles Puigdemont which was closed after extensive discussion. However, one editor disagrees with the closure and consensus here and then reverting two editors here and here, unilaterally overturning consensus. He also tried to re-open the closed discussion thread here. I tried moving his new comment to the bottom and aded my own comment, here including removing. We clearly need admin action as the rfc was closed a week ago and we had a clear consensus. I don't agree with the consensus but it's consensus and needs to be respectd by all of us. I also consider the removal of my comment unacceptable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User: N0n3up has not made any edit since the most recent warning by user:EdJohnston. So, while a block may not be currently justified, I will close the talk-page discussion and warn the editor that any similar disruption o the article/talk-page will invite immediate blocks. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ssybesma

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

---

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

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this edit, and this edit, and this edit and take whatever action may be appropriate, at least a civility warning or something? Consider particularly the ALL CAPS edit summary in the first edit and prior warnings to the user ... Neutrality^talk 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this user seems like an unstable racist (especially with that last diff), so WP:NOTHERE is an understatement. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Where would one begin? I've issued a only warning for civility; the next edit in a similar fashion should result in extended block if not indefinite (despite of the account age), per reasons stated above. Alex Shih (talk) 15:46, 29 June 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.

Crap on my talk page

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

---

Apologies for bringing this here, but I've never actually needed to ask it before in nearly twelve years. I just received this note on my talkpage after banning some vandals over at Capital Gazette shooting: anything I need to do about it beyond ignore it? What, if so? Thanks in advance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My advice: block the user, cut talk-page access, rev-del that, and send it to the Foundation. I'd say it falls under a "threat of harm". —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Will do, thanks. I thought it was likely something along those lines. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you failed the "low visibility" prescription for these kinds of things. That said, I'm not sure I agree with Javert2113 that this requires an email to the Foundation, since there was no specific threat (even "purge" does not necessarily imply violence). I will, however, as a disclaimer note that I have a history of underestimating the applicability of policies like this (see the two times my userpage has been deleted or revdelled because of WP:CHILD violations). That said, I would agree with block and revdel under R3. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reported it. Possibly overreacting, but given a.) the heated nature of the moment, and b.) the origins of the statement (ideologically speaking), better be safe than sorry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, agreed. Besides, I believe (though cannot verify) that the Foundation requests that it be emailed with these things for legal reasons. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Purge" and "rid of" are definitely warning signs. Reporting it was not overreacting, and was absolutely the right course. Regardless of whether or not the person intends to carry out these threats, it's best to report. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

To me it sounded more like an immature reference to Purge (film), but yes always better safe than sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I immediately thought of the movie Purge too. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey look, loose stool. Home Lander (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
....beats listening to the radio, I guess.

Is this why he does it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

One comment, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the block on 172.58.200.222 is a bit too long. Since it's a mobile broadband address, the vandal can be assigned a new IP address at any time, so a block of anything longer than a day or so is ineffective, and it may inadvertently stop someone else from editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: Thanks for the advice. I reduced it to a week. I know you said a day, but given the vile nature of the posts in question I'm loath to go that far, to be honest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Crap on my talk page"???

I'm all for letting consenting adults do what they want behind closed doors, but when I look at the title of this thread I'm moved to suggest that there are more discreet ways of meeting people willing to fulfill one's fetishistic desires. EEng 06:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I needed a laugh today. Thanks, EEng.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: To borrow a line from the unparalleled David Malki: "Are you trying to seduce me? Because it's wooooooooooorking." --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And to think some people say my humor is immature. EEng 16:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to express an interest in- Dammit. I misunderstood the thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect there's actually demand for this. There's already a category. Let yourself loose, some of the images ought to be free use. Home Lander (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand there's also a game, Scat-a-gories. EEng 01:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Vitamin D12, anyone? Personally I'm quite a big fan. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Lou Stools?... who's next, Lou Canova??

• Fine, but only if you'll let me hang out my shingle. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Why in the world do I do these things? EEng 03:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: You might be on to something, by gadfry. Though there's those of us as does it for free... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not me. I couldn't possible live on just my welfare check, my social security check, my union pension, and my allowance from Mumsy. I really need that monthly check from Wikipedia to make ends meet. Why, without it, I'd probably never have been able to buy that Bentley! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

It has been botting millions of pages! Threatening massive arcticle deletions and much more! This bot must be shut down to prevent further arcticle deletion warnings spread! This bot is being nominated to be deleted due to botting arcitcle deletions and editing pages by an accident! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian0205 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• No it isn't. The OP is a vandalism-only account, though (check their contribs...), and deserves an indef... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:03, 1 July 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.

improper reversions and incivility

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

---

Reverting good faith maintenance edits

I made observations on Talk:Arlesdale Railway#Article issues. I later removed Wikipedia links (I initially thought they were uncited books) used as "General sources" (diff) with the edit summary "(Sources: Remove Wikipedia links used as source. The "Source" section is not to be used as an extension of the "See also" section.)" per WP:CIRCULAR, marked a (The Real Lives of Thomas the Tank Engine dead link) also used as a general source, deleted a duplicated "External link", and added comments in a "Sources" sub-section on what I had done.

This was reverted by User:Andy Dingley (notified) with the edit summary "rv clueless edit. Undid revision".

Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party that states, "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution.", as a discussion as well as a friendly notice, I left comments at the editors talk page. For the second time I was referred to as being either clueless or incompetent. As a further show of incivility the editor stated "Also, discuss that article there, and don't waste bytes on my talk: page.". This effectively kills any further correspondence because the issue went beyond the article.

Unless things have changed that I am just not aware of (but I did mention there was no policy based rebuttal) it seems clear that the article has been showing sourcing, when in fact there are none, so this also circumvents proper maintenance categorizing. The editor added an archived link to the External links but deleted the "dead link" maintenance tag in the process.

My problem aside from incivility, hostility, and claims that I am biased against other than US comic book articles (posted DELETEASNOTBATMAN), is that good faith policy based edits should not be reverted with non-policy based uncivil comments like day-to-day edits. This can be deemed as vandalism, certainly when accompanied by rude dismissing comments as well as callous disregard for policies and guidelines, that to me is disruptive editing. This editor does have a history of harrassment, persistent personal attacks and edit warring and I am asking if something can be done so that the editor might understand that this is not acceptable behavior. Otr500 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the underlying content dispute, your edits were unquestionably incorrect and the reversion of them was unquestionably correct. What you removed weren't Wikipedia links used as source, they were the links to the Wikipedia articles about the books in the bibliography, which is correct practice when the book in question is itself the subject of an article. (The notion that The "Source" section is not to be used as an extension of the "See also" section is just bizarre; that an article includes a "Further reading" section is a good thing, not some kind of policy violation. In any case, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; the books listed are the sources for the article. While inline citation is strongly recommended, it isn't and never has been compulsory.) Frankly, I'm not surprised Andy Dingley lost his temper at your unwillingness to admit that you were in the wrong, let alone your failure to stop digging by coming here. When something is under review at ANI the behavior of all involved, including the filer, is examined; I'd strongly recommend withdrawing this now before the WP:BOOMERANG hits you. ‑ Iridescent 22:51, 30 June 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.

Protect Chrissy Teigen

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

---

She just tweeted about the article, so it’s about to face a huge wave of vandalism. I thought saying it here would get it protected faster.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 30 June 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.

Maperuespino

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

---

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

Maperuespino (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for disruptive editing. He's continuing to add unsourced genres in music articles (1, 2, 3) and film articles (1, 2). He also adds unsourced budgets (diff) and has edit warred in Sylver to maintain his unsourced genre changes (June 26 and June 29). I've been reverting his unsourced changes off-and-on, so I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again. Doesn't seem to engage on talk either. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 June 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.

Deleted HW page

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

---

Can someone help me and get a page that was deleted. It was a homework assignment that is due in 2 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsulce (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

RevDel and block requested

The following discussion is closed. 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 offering illegal goods here. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Review by another admin requested; something I haven't done before. - Donald Albury 12:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed your actions and endorse the actions taken. --John (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Same. Fish+Karate 13:19, 2 July 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.

Cœur de pirate

On Cœur de pirate, someone seeming to represent Béatrice Martin is removing sourced information under Personal life. At first I assumed this was vandalism since instead of blanking they just added "forever alone." However, when I warned them they reverted again. On their talk page, they cited their reason being The change is a demand from Beatrice Martin herself. Her private life is PRIVATE. Unfortunately, I did not add their talk page to my watchlist and I reverted the person without seeing their message. I wanted to bring this to attention before it stumbled into legal threat territory. I have already left them a COI message but it is very early in the morning where I am and am not too equipt to deal with this at this moment. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced, yes, but how trutworthy are they; are any of them reliable? The anglophone sources look like gossip rags to me. I can't say anything solid, since my Internet is spotty and I couldn't load their "about" pages and couldn't load the French one at all (I even had difficulty loading the second diff you provided), but this is another situation where we have to demand sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Can you provide me with third-party evidence that all of these sources indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Are they experts in the field, or are they just journalists who have to put out something to meet a deadline? Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There seemed to be some discussion in 2016 on the talk page about this under Private life and controversy where they discuss possible BLP vios. I don't think that the COI has a problem with the content being false (although of course I understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy and why you are asking about reliable sources) it's more that it's true but they don't want everyone knowing. They keep stating they just want privacy of life. I have no problem removing this however the way the COI was going about it was becoming disruptive and I didn't want it to get out of hand. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources themselves are as reliable as any other news org. Almost all relationship-based content is tabloid gossip though. However the nudity photos were widely covered. The 'controversy' is that she was allegedly underage at the time which is why it had more legs than the usual 'celebrity nude photos' gossip. You would be better off asking for more opinions at WP:BLPN Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a language barrier on the editor (Dilleux)'s part; at any rate, it seems like s/he doesn't quite understand what Wikipedia is all about. Is there anyone fluent in French who would like to adopt him/her? (I took French in high school but that was over twenty years ago.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HenrikStyle

HS has been contacted by me and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. I have sent them seven messages about this - in between all the messages, HS was editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response. They have been editing for 10 months and do know how to add references accurately, but often don't do so. After trying for a few weeks, I'm opening the discussion here in the hope they engage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another WP:RADAR user. They don’t appear to have been around since this discussion was started, but if they return without addressing any of this a block is in order. Refusing to communicate is essentaially a rejection of the idea that this is a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

School project for the State of Rhode Island

Probably best straightened out here by uninvolved parties. I am a little concerned that a school project is not being well served by us at the moment, and possibly the school should have followed some protocol on Wikipedia. Rcar01 has been adding external links to websites where the subject matter, at least in part, relates to the State of Rhode Island. At this point, we don't know if this is a teacher, administrator or student. Chrissymad reported this at AIV. A discussion ensued on Chrissymad's talk page, where the user claims to be completing a school project. I followed every one of those external links, and they are the Rhode Island state repository for given subject matters. Therefore, I rejected the AIV request, because it seems no vandalism was intended. diff. Would someone who is more familiar with schools and how they should approach school projects on Wikipedia please comment here and/or offer some concrete advice to Rcar01. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't report it as vandalism. I reported it specifically as spam only due to the repeated addition of external links after even asking them to stop. They have also stated they are doing this on behalf of an organization here and refused to disclose it here. I will add that I fail to see how one state's archives to generic topics, like African Americans is any more relevant than another. Should we add all 50 states' archives to such articles? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Classroom assignments in the United States are normally handled by the Wiki Education Foundation. This does not appear to be a typical assignment. I would have already blocked the user for their refusal to disclose on whose behalf they are editing. However, there are admins giving the user advice that the user can edit as long as they disclose a conflict, e.g., There'sNoTime. I'm struggling to see the benefit to the project of having a user like this editing Wikipedia (that's Rcar01, not TNT :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thank you. Corporate/government America being what it is, there's always the possibility some clerk-level employee (of whoever is driving this) ordered them to do it, and gave no clue as to how to get it done. I mean ... adding links is not what you pay the big salaries for. Or who knows. In any case, I believe no mal-intent was the motivation, so it's always worth it go try and help. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Plenty of benefits in keeping me around! (probably)

I see your point - I attempted to de-escalate the situation, and I believe with some guidance there could be a small benefit from having them edit. Worst case, I'm wrong, and we end up having to do a bit of reverting - TNT ^💖 20:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder for Bbb23 and others: Wiki Ed Foundation only handles US higher ed assignments. There is no institutional support (that I'm aware of) for ed assignments at the secondary (or lower) level. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion this is perfectly clear-cut. The editor is, by his or her own statement, editing on behalf of an organisation. He or she therefore has a conflict of interest, and no exception should be made to our policies and guidelines merely because someone says that what they are doing is for a school assignment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note, that as a non-COI editor, I have restored some of the ELs as I feel that they are useful to the reader and qualify under EL standards. By this action, I take ownership of those edits I restored. However, this should not be taken by Rcar01 as an indication that they should make further edits of a similar nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 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.

---

Moved to WP:AN § Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 article

There is a leftover "Draft:Branko Mladenović" (of 3 authors, 2016-2018) pasted into 2009-2017 stub "Branko Mladenović" (stub edits in 2017 are Bot-fixes). Can histories be merged and then draft-comments be removed? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 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:Markdossantos11

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor has been warned numerous times at User talk:Markdossantos11 about creating problematic articles, but hasn't responded to the messages. They have created more unref blps after being asked to stop - I've been trying to communicate with them for several weeks, five messages, but no response. They were editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response.

They have only edited their talk page on one occasion, two and a half years ago. This was to delete a warning from GiantSnowman about - unsurprisingly - not sourcing when adding information to articles. This is a long time for an editor to have been receiving warnings and carried on. They not only deleted GS's message, but replaced it with: 'no mr snowpants your a bad person don't do that again.' I'm not sure what to say about that. After two and a half years of the same issue, we need to resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block - per WP:CIR. Long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs and creating non-notable articles. Clearly doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Indef block If he starts communicating, we can consider unblock via WP:AN. Hhkohh (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Mark has edited since this started, including this [226], deleting the ANI notice from their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 1 July 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.

An editor is reverting my edits and attacking me on multiple articles

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

---

The user Oleotusks has been reverting my edits on multiple articles and implying that I am incompetent and disruptive. The biggest problem is that some of the edit summaries appear to be outright personal attacks against me. It is worrying me a little bit. What do I do? I'm a bit new here and I understand that I may make mistakes, but the way the edit summaries are worded seems quite offensive to me. Here's a link to the user contributions of this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oleotusks I am providing this link because it is the easiest way to show all of the problematic edit summaries. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked under WP:NOTHERE. They were also obviously socking as LWharpoon. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Diamond Blizzard (talk) 04:23, 2 July 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.

Range block, please - death threats in summaries

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

I just blocked the two above, but I think we need a range block here. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: have you seen any other IPs doing this? Those IPs are part of Orange Polska, so there will be a fair amount of collateral unless we can narrow things down a bit - TNT ^💖 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime not so far. The ones I blocked came up at WP:AIV. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Maile66: Based on the three IPs they've definitely used, the smallest possible range we can narrow this person down to is 83.30.169.252/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which contains over 32,000 IPs and produces little to no disruption. Plus, since we only have three known IPs, there's no clear indication that this person is limited to a range that small. So, a range block is not feasible, even if those were credible "death threats" (I would disregard it petty nonsense myself). Swarm ♠ 20:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime and Swarm - OK. Thanks for the feedback. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Return of the troll?

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

---

User: DaMondo Gizzard reverted my edit on Dynasty (2017 TV series) with a summary of "Let loose the harpoon!" I was attacked by a troll recently, one of those sockpuppets was LWharpoon. This makes me very suspicious. Can someone investigate? Thank you! Diamond Blizzard (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's the same person. Account is reverting my edits with insulting edit summaries. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by NeilN, tagged by me. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 3 July 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.

Zee money's article creations #2

User:Zee money has been editing since 2008. He repeatedly creates articles without sources and machine translates without copy editing, as well as creating micro-stubs with few sentences. Zee money has been reminded dozens of times to add references and add other fixes, to no avail. In June 2017, following an ANI thread, his autopatrolled right was removed. Examples of his most recent articles are [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]. Even when Zee money adds references they are machine translated from the articles of other language wikis and often incompatible templates are copied over as a result (he doesn't fix these). In effect, this is WP:NOTHERE behavior – even though he responds and asks questions on other editors talk pages, he does not follow the suggestions of other editors on how the articles he creates can be improved. As a result, I am posting here for suggestion on how to address this issue. Kges1901 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that the "bibliography" section here and the "literature" section here aren't the sources list for those two articles? These are the kind of wordings that happen when languages are put through machine translators. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I should note that creating machine translations without identifying the source is a serious copyright problem, even though he is (presumably) copying from other language Wikipedias. Does he ever add content to existing articles in this manner, or is it always new ones? A ban on article creations could be feasible. (I'm jumping the gun here; Zee money at least needs an opportunity to explain himself, although he will find that difficult in light of the long string of notifications and warnings on his talk page.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Zee money does not add content to existing articles at all; he has only added links. An article creation ban might be a solution to this. Kges1901 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I endorse and support Kges1901's concerns; I've had similar frustrating experiences trying to coach Zee money. I am really not sure whether he should be here at all. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had the same experience. He never replies to requests to follow the most basic rules here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with above. This has been going on for way too long. I suggest a requirement for him to create all new articles in the Draft namespace for approval. -Zanhe (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please! I don't care whether he is 100% blocked or just stopped from creating new articles, but he has to be stopped from making such a mess. He writes worse than All your base are belong to us.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

personal threats

Hello, I received personal threats by user @Sofianichols by message on my user page (21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)) after a Wikipedia page of Eric Arnoux was protected by moderators at my request, to his diplease. @Sofianichols wrote to me “Be careful internet is not the place to revenge and laws exists.” and made false and unsourced accusations. Could you please check the situation and possibly block this person? I am concerned now. Many thanks SarahMitchels82 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comments there rise to the level of a legal threat, but I have warned the other user. SarahMitchels82, you do need to notify the other user of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given the needed notification. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

/r/squaredcircle and WikiProject Pro Wrestling decision

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

---

/r/squaredcircle is now aware of decision in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#In wrestling. There's influx of users from /r/squaredcircle and probably other pro wrestling communities; please be aware of invasion/brigades from these communities. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:General_sanctions/Professional_wrestling are now force. To help my esteemed fellow editors grasp the magnitude of what we're up against, here's the beginning of the /r/squaredcircle (whatever the fuck that is) discussion linked above:

Earlier in the month a consensus was reached within the wrestling editors to remove the section that lists a wrestler's finishers, signatures, common moves, managers, theme songs, tag-team partners and nick-names from over the years. I don't know about you all but when I look at a wrestler's wiki this is what I'm looking for 99% of the time. It's the single most useful part of the page. If you, like me, think this is a horrible move then you should make yourself known to the editors. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling

Dude what the FUCK. I look at that all the time. It is literally my reference point when I create wrestlers in the WWE 2k series. How else am I supposed to remember what signature moves Mideon and Juventud Guerrera had? Also when people make stat posts thats a huge point of reference

YES! This is a prime example of why that section is needed, whenever I'm trying to bulk out a CAW's moveset, or make it more unique to them, I'll check that and use the moves they have listed. Now I'll have to use shite "25 best moves of insert wrestler" videos, which have basic shit like "PUNCH" and "KICK" as entries.

Nah, I wouldn't stoop to using those. Just use the archived versions of the pages. You know now that they've removed those sections, so just look up a past version of the page when you need to when it still had that information available.

That last bit makes me want to suggest that, after these articles are all scrubbed into shape, we revdel all the old versions. If we're not careful we'll have another WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People multiyear decade-long dramafest on our hands. EEng 04:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. See also this search of AN, ANI, and related boards for the astonishing 450 threads containing the word wrestling. That's three incidents per month for 15 years. EEng 04:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm out of the loop, what exactly happened there? Revdel is also way too overkill. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 05:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only is RevDel overkill, I'm not sure why EEng is even recommending it here; if a bunch of nerdy superfans want to go crawling through the revision histories to find information that is in some way useful to them (even be it for a purpose so trivial that it bemuses us), I cannot fathom what harm that does to the live version of the article or how it impacts on any editorial interest. So long as they are not trying to resurrect that content, nothing in such utilization of the revision history is remotely disruptive--and if such efforts did occur, there would be more direct and effective ways of responding to it than turning the revision history of the article into swiss cheese; WP:REVDELs are meant to be employed only for explicitly enumerated and very narrow administrative and libel purposes, as described by WP:CRD and none of those criteria apply here. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just read through that entire thread, and, although I 100% support and appreciate FMecha making us aware of it, I think it is worth noting that there is zero evidence of impending organized attempts to disrupt. The OP made a call to "make their voices known" here, but not one person responding to the thread has done so in a fashion suggesting they are about to invade Wikipedia and start edit warring. In fact, a great number of the responses show sympathy for our editorial needs in constraining the content, and some even themselves find the sections in question excessive. They mostly seem like reasonable people as far as that discussion suggests; even the ones expressing a "#%&@ those elitist Wikipedians" sentiment are almost all discussing migrating the content we are removing over to Wikia, which is the obvious best solution for both their and our needs. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is there really no Wikia or other non-Wikipedia wiki that people go to for that kind of info? No wonder all the nuts are here. ansh666 04:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  Having read the thread, there is, but it's pretty out of date, or so I hear. Anyway, I say we be sporting and not rev-del for a bit, at least so some users can grab all that information. Maybe five days, a week? Now, joking aside: FMecha, thank you for the warning. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be expecting any revdeling of the content, not unless you can convince an admin that a violation consistent with WP:CRD has occurred, and I can't see as how any relevant provision applies to the current circumstances. The inspiration for this suggestion seems wholly divorced from any kind of policy rationale and (perhaps I'm wrong here, but...) feels like it is predicated in a sentiment of "we feel like these people have wasted our time, so lets act punitively to make a point." Frankly there was more than a fair bit of talk in the same vein during the AN discussion that implemented the general sanctions, and the ANI thread that gave birth to the proposal. I followed both discussions during their duration and almost !voted for the sanctions, because I felt they were warranted, on the balance of things. But I never found the time to contribute because I knew that I would have to add a caveat to my support saying that I was uncomfortable with the amount of blatant bias and antagonism that some of the supporting editors were bringing to their discussion of the topic. Literally people saying the likes of "I have no problem calling pro wrestling a pastime for morons." If reading those threads helped to inspire a counter-movement amongst afficianados who don't understand our policies, I'm not terribly surprised.

And yes, I understand that this has been an ongoing issue for years, which goes some way to explaining the level of frustration. Believe me, as someone who has joined more than one discussion attempting to scale back D&D articles, or those detailing the imaginary lives of comic book characters, I know how vexing it can be to go up against organized and tenacious groups of WP:NOTHERE editors ignoring process, policy, and consensus at every turn to try to retain geekcruft WP:TRIVIA. That's why I support the new general sanctions here. But it feels like there's an undercurrent amongst some editors responding to this problem that dips into a needless personalizing of the issue. Now, maybe with regard to revdel I've missed some pragmatic benefit underpinning the suggestion. If so, I'll eat crow. But right now, it seems like it is just meant to thwart the disruptive editors in some what that has nothing to do with improving the articles and more to do with putting that group in their place. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• prowrestling.wikia.com exist, but it highly relies on information from here for now. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 05:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If they wish to look at the history I say let them as long as they don’t restore it. It’s not like there’s copyrighted or obscene material there so I don’t believe a revdel should be used. I don’t see any issue as long as nothing is restored against consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that if they see old versions as a reference repository, they'll continue to add crap to articles even knowing it will be immediately deleted. It was just a suggestion for the future so please just calm down. EEng 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone here is perfectly calm. But, respectfully, your proposal suggests that you don't really understand how that tool works and why that suggestion is a complete non-starter here. Revdel is used only for highly offensive, threatening, or libelous commentary, not for workaday content edits--even highly contentious ones. Because the use is so narrow, admins can deploy the tool to meet the needs of addressing libel and harassment promptly, non-controversially, and in combination with other tools that allow them to forestall further disruption, such that the revdel's represent only the rarest of precise redaction from the edit history. The changes you are suggesting (aside from being the kinds of edits which the tool is not meant for) are live across hundreds (maybe even thousands in some cases) of versions, multiplied by hundreds of articles. Finding and editing them all out with the tool (aside from being a perhaps impracticably impossible and certainly needlessly laborious solution to a non-problem) would leave the revision histories of those articles as a garbled mess and would hugely complicate (rather than aid) those trying to do the necessary clean-up for said articles. It would also create an administrative nightmare for the community whenever some innocent editor's contributions which preserved those edits (which would also need to be deleted under your plan for the "benefit" to remain) are removed and leave the suggestion of numerous highly disruptive edits, which the average user cannot see to confirm or negate that conclusion.

And honestly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of reasons why the proposal is a bad idea because of all of the technical and pragmatic complications that would arise from deploying it over a huge number of edits in that fashion. And all of that suggested as a prospective solution to speculative disruption which may or may not arise in any form. It's just not what the tool is meant for. It's like bringing a demolition hammer to bear on a situation that needs a screwdriver; not just overkill, but indeed, highly counter-productive and likely to leave the thing you were trying to put together a broken mess. The issue you are concerned about can be very easily addressed with the more appropriate tools that are usually brought to bear in such cases; page protection and targeted blocks. I can't imagine that even one in a hundred of the individuals in that thread (who mostly don't seem to be interested in coming here to edit in any event, but are instead considering alternative homes for their collection of pro wrestling apocrypha) has an account with more than 500 edits. So we're realistically talking about the outside possibility of maybe a handful of editors capable of thwarting semi-protection, and those can be handled the usual way we deal with determined disruptive editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it was a half-serious musing, off the top of my head, for something maybe to think about in the distant future. And with twice your tenure and four times your experience here, I assure you I know exactly what revdel is and what it's (usually) used for. Will you give it a rest now? My real point was to remind admins that DS is available in this topic area, but that's been completely swamped by all this pearl-clutching. EEng 02:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are quantifying "experience" here, but your suggestion indicates that, at the very least, you didn't really stop to think about whether using revdel in the manner you were suggesting would be advisable or even feasible. And I don't see how that could have been an attempt to remind admins about general (not discretionary) sanctions, since you didn't mention that topic at all, even obliquely. Please don't take this matter personally; you made a suggestion and others pointed out why it really wouldn't work and that there are other means for addressing the speculated-on disruption, if it ever even manifests itself. You responded to one of those editors by implying that they were "uncalm" about the subject, despite a complete lack of evidence for that assumption (the single lamest rhetorical strategy in the history of human discourse, and the one least likely to actually inspire calm in a discussion) and then proposing an adjustment to your reasoning. I responded by explaining why, even with that adjustment, your suggestion just is not going to happen and would be a nightmare if we did try to implement it.

Now, if you want to take umbrage because I pointed this out in a manner that didn't show proper deference to your tenure on this project, as measured relative to my own, I honestly don't know what to tell you; my response was to your suggestion itself, which was simply ill-considered as a procedural matter, and did in fact give the impression that you didn't know how it works or had not stopped to consider how it would operate here. I don't, as matter of habit, check the relative contributions of other editors to make sure I have been around for longer than they have before I mention what I perceive to be a flaw in their reasoning--nor does any policy or principle of community consensus encourage me to. And I certainly have no interest in an illogical contribution-measuring contest to establish the validity of the points I raised in showing why the tool is not appropriate here--the argument speaks for itself. My comment also does not come in isolation; I'm a little concerned about some of the forgoing discussion on the noticeboards regarding this topic and the fact the response by some is starting to look needlessly personalized and punative. I think putting the brakes on one proposed rash action could forestall the next one. But again, nothing personal in that. If your suggestion was off-the-cuff and you don't intend to contest the objections, I think it can be left at that. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how that could have been an attempt to remind admins about general (not discretionary) sanctions, since you didn't mention that topic at all, even obliquely – Er, um, that would be in my opening post: "Just a reminder that WP:General sanctions/Professional wrestling are now force."
• If you follow that link you'll see it's indeed couched in terms of DS.
• You mean foregoing, as in that which has gone before. Forgoing means to do without something, as in "Could we please forgo all this tiresome lecturing?"

Having given us 30 lines of explanation for why you invested 20 lines in tamping down the threat posed by one sentence, and then 40 lines to explicate what you meant by the 30 lines, followed by 50 lines unraveling the 40, will you now bestow on us another 100 lines exploring the 50's unraveling of the 40's commentary on the 30's insights into the 20? Or in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, is there an Off switch on you? All I said is, "That last bit makes me want to suggest that, after these articles are all scrubbed into shape, we revdel all the old versions". I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. EEng 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that post clearly has nothing to do with the comment I replied to, which had (as its sole topic), your suggestion. Again, I do not know why you must take this so personally. I responded quite civilly to your comments and it often takes much more time to explain why an ill-considered idea won't work than it does to just throw that idea out there in the first place. Likewise for your responses. Clearly I insulted your pride when you interpreted my comment to be a needle at your not knowing how revdel works, but I had no such intention when I framed my response to your proposal. You made a suggestion and I and others responded to that suggestion not as "suggestion by editor EEng, who has X number of contributions" nor for that matter as "suggestion by EEng, whom I assume doesn't get this, so let me spell it out for him". We're not in your head, friend--we can't know if you made this suggestion as a "half-serious musing, off the top of my head" or because you honestly don't get why it wouldn't work. All we can do is respond in good faith to the suggestion you made on its own plain meaning. And in order to do that, some discussion of the technicalities is going to be involved.

Anything that has come after that has been a product of how poorly you have responded to perceived criticism. I don't understand why this ever had to be about us as individuals, in any way. I had an objection to your proposal, not a problem with you. I feel you are being very uncivil and ungracious about what was a simple policy call on my part. And no, sir, I most certainly do not have an "off switch" for you. I have no switches to which you will ever have the remotest chance of access, thank you very much. And that's not how discussion works on this project (or how one gains high ground in a discussion generally). If you wish to not engage further, I'm happy to let the matter drop, but you can't assert that I have a mouth in pithy rejoinders and then treat response to your comments as proof of the assertion. Anyway, I do think BMK is correct. There's nothing further to be gained from engaging here. Good day. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

<stares in mute astonishment> EEng 06:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. FWIW, I'm pretty sure the rest of us knew that you weren't serious. ansh666 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Less talk, please, more article editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard. EEng 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Get them in the right order: "Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:22, 3 July 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.

Security of external link and editor who won't deny COI

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

---

Please see this re-addition of an external link and User talk:Jc3s5h#Trusted_timestamping edits, where User:Paulg222 indicates advanced skills are required to determine if the site is safe for users to use.

One concern is that to provide the free service, the user must go through motions which, to a user who lacks advanced skills, are indistinguishable from uploading a file. (I am not proficient with Javascript coding and am unable to determine if the file is actually uploaded or not.)

Another concern is the user has only made a few edits, all if which are related to this website. The user is unwilling to state his/her relationship to the site. These circumstances suggest a conflict of interest exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have informed Paulg222 of this discussion. In future Jc3s5h you must do this yourself when discussing a user at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• I notified the user in a discussion which the user was clearly following. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I just think there are too many ELs on that page. Links should have encyclopaedic value to explain the topic not have a oh here’s an implementation in case you wish to use it or here’s a link to s version. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the Trusted timestamping article fall under Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies ? Fish+Karate 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Blockchains are only one way to achieve trusted timestamping, and were not the first method used for this purpose. So putting it in the suggested general sanctions category seems like a stretch to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Jc3s5h has made multiple incorrect statements about the website and now about me. I would like to have those addressed. I have never denied involvement in the site. Jc3s5h asked what my relationship was to the site in the context of a discussion about his/her incorrect statements. I wanted to get those incorrect statements resolved first before discussing my relationship with the site to avoid having that discussion derailed (as has now occurred). Also at this time I was not informed or aware of COI rules and felt that the question about relationship to the site was too broad and an attempt to change the topic from Jc3s5h's incorrect statements and editorial reasoning, so I wanted to defer COI discussion till later. There is also a doxxing issue to consider given the form of the questions being asked. Jc3s5h first incorrectly stated there was a security issue and cited this as the reason for their removing of the link. When notified about the incorrect statements, Jc3s5h did not make any attempt to correct that and continues to cite security as an issue (like the title of this admin notice) and has made further incorrect statements about source code on the site. Jc3s5h now however, is citing a different reason for why the external link should be removed. Actually 2 reasons: COI as well as non-encyclopedic value. Which one is it? Why did Jc3s5h not cite COI concerns or External linking rules as their original reason? Why continue to site security as a reason when it has not been established that this is an issue (in fact it has been established there is no security concern)?Paulg222 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As for COI, yes I have a relationship to the site. Again this has become a distraction though to the conversation. If Jc3s5h has a general objection to external links in articles, then Jc3s5h should site those as reasons for removal when editing. If Jc3s5h has reasons to expect COI, Jc3s5h should cite those as reasons in the original edit rather than make false statements about a site that can have a negative impact on that site.Paulg222 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One would think that in a Wikipedia article about a security related technology, and in a discussion about a site that provides a security-related service, all concerned would expect that either the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern, or would have established a reputation for trustworthiness through independent review. Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

expect the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern – Wha??? EEng 14:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This conversation and the arguments are all very well but they’re irrelevant. Wikipedia isn’t a collection of links and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does. As a result per WP:EL it’s not eligible for inclusion. That should be the end of the discussion here, based on policy. We don’t provide links to “here’s a service that does this.” Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd."

Perhaps you are confused here. There is no expectation of advanced knowledge for Users of the site. Users can either choose to trust the site, it's explanations and it's claims or not and those with capabilities to do so are welcome to use their expertise to validate the claims made on the site. This validation will then lead to further established reputation for that site if those few experts choose perhaps to write about it elsewhere. However, for you as an editor of Wikipedia to make false claims about the security of a site without anything to back up that assertion nor even with the expertise yourself to understand security or websites in general means you are not qualified to really edit external links for security reasons and you should refrain from such actions and defer that to people who have such knowledge. Merely not knowing if a site is secure or not is not a reason to exclude it. If you have questions about an edit, asking for further explanation or enlisting someone with appropriate expertise is the proper move.

In the case of Trusted_timestamping it is not a requirement in general to not upload files, it is just something this site in question has implemented as an added privacy feature. In fact submitting files to a trusted 3rd party can be a valuable service. One key aspect of timestamping is being able to maintain a perfect copy of the original files. Some programs like Microsoft Word and others can easily alter a file if it is merely opened on a persons computer, thereby destroying the original copy needed for later verification. So a trusted site could very well be used to upload files for storage, just like people upload to Google Drive and other backup services. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does."

As to whether a particular external link is proper or not for Wikipedia is a far different discussion. With my biased view of course I think in this case it is warranted. Trusted_timestamping is not exactly a well understood practice and even less so with a Blockchain being used as the TSA essentially. By including an external site that actually allows for free timestamping users will have the ability to gain greater knowledge of the practice in a way that the article does not allow. In fact the blockchain aspect makes the timestamped data (sha256 hashes) public so that users can even verify on other 3rd party sites the validity of the data. Thus in fact Trusted_timestamping itself has been advanced perhaps where even the TSA is no longer a centralized source and the TPP is merely a pass through of hashed data. The site goes to some lengths to explain some of this process both on the create, verify and faq pages. This content could perhaps be put into an image flow format (similar to other images on the Trusted_timestamping page), however in lieu of that the site itself does provide encyclopedic knowledge that is not clear on the Wikipedia page. Thus the assertion of no value is flawed. Please see the explanations on the site itself. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"It's useful" is not a reason to override our inclusion criteria. Being a tool folks can use to experiment with the concept is not "encyclopedic knowledge." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 29 June 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 editor who is also engaging in personal attacks

Anne Heero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits to the article Bully (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They have been repeatedly adding a reference to becoming "an hero," a slang term for committing suicide that is also referenced in their username. The slang term is often used in a derogatory way in reference to people who have committed suicide. After I reverted them, they told me to "go get some more lotion and paper towels and keep yourself busy that way" in an edit summary. Aspening (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User blocked temporarily and warned. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If Anne Heero returns to suicide trolling or any other disruptive behavior, the next block should be indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have blocked indef for the combination of user name, vandalism, and personal attacks. --John (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I started a report at SPI because I've seen some accounts that look like socks, and a couple of accounts made impersonating me right after Anne Heero was blocked. Aspening (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

They're CU-blocked now. Got some sock IPs popping up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I found a potential sleeper that was just created today, after the checkuser run, with a username implying association with this case but that doesn't have any edits. Worth reporting? Aspening (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, both that I was monitoring are active now. Aspening (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Alfa kanima

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

---

Alfa kanima is persistently creating blps with no clear references despite several warnings not to do so. They have been pointed to the guidelines on sourcing, and on communication, but haven't responded (see [[User talk:Alfa kanima#References and User talk:Alfa kanima#Sources and communication. They have been editing for 3 years but have never responded to a message. For the last three years, they have regularly been receiving numerous warnings about disruptive editing, poor sourcing etc. Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have left a very stern warning, if they do not communicate as their very next edit they will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The warning can't hurt, but they have received dozens of warnings over the years and ignored them all. They have continued to edit since the ANI was opened but not commented here (they haven't yet edited since your warning). Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

They have edited since my warning and as a result I've given them an indefinite block to force communication. Either that will wake them up and force the user to begin to address concerns, or we'll not hear from them again. I'd like to hear from them as most of their edits are actually constructive, just lacking in a few policies, they're clearly not a troll or vandalism account. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 1 July 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:Steel Dogg

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

---

Steel Dogg has been editing WP for 5 years. During the last year, I have sent 10 messages about creating unreferenced articles, including blps with no clear refs. They have edited in between all 10 messages but haven't responded. They do know how to edit their talk page and have done so several times, but not in the last couple of years and most of the edits seem to be just blanking the page, not responding to editors' concerns. I have directed them to relevant policies on communication and sourcing, but they have continued creating unref blps, and after so many months, there seems to be no chance they will communicate. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Less than 50 of their ≈14000 edits are to talk pages, but of the comments they have posted, they've shown they know how to use talk pages and communicate in fluent English, so there is no reason they can't engage in discussion now. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 22:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a list of page creations for the editor in question, for those interested. Notably none of these articles seem to have been deleted, though some of player BLPs possibly could be (even given WP:NFOOTY's notoriously low hurdle that allows just about anyone who has so much as stared sideways at a football once to be entitled to their own article). I have to admit, I honestly don't know if it is considered per se disruptive for an editor to create articles without sources, where sourcing does exist but simply was not added (which describes at least some of the articles here). Arguably it should be prohibited (reviewing editors should not have to choose between a deletion proposal and going through the effort of researching notability themselves), but I'm not sure that it is as a matter of firm policy and/or community consensus. But given they are engaging in an activity that they have been called on, I do think the onus is on them to engage and discuss (or else to desist in the behaviour if they don't wish to engage). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

See [233], [234] and [235] for 3 namespace editing Hhkohh (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Seem he communicated with Boleyn in 2017 but no longer communicating in recent 6 months. Hhkohh (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Steel Dogg started editing since the incident file. Hhkohh (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No page creations though. In fact, now that I look at the situation again, it seems that there have been no new page creations since May. Are we sure that they have not taken the hint as per Boleyn's talk page comments? Boleyn when were the last few times you left a comment for Steel Dogg in any talk space (regardless of whether they responded)? And if I can ask, why did you raise the issue here now? Did you only just become aware of the May article creations? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They haven't taken the hint by doing eitherof the two things I was asking - adding sources or responding to messages. Once I saw the May creation in New Page Patrol (in June) I left a message, and when I saw that I was again being ignored, after such a long history of this behaviour, I took it here, Snow Rise. 06:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys, I talked to Boleyn and once again I want to apologize for the communication on my behalf. I finally understand now how to add sources to pages, and I won't make the mistake again in the future. Steel Dogg (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good start. I know its not always easy to find time to answer messages, but when possible please try to be responsive to efforts to discuss challenged changes to articles. And I think it would be a good thing to consider any further advice Boleyn has in this area. From these circumstances, it seems to me that they are very patient and fair-minded in their approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn are you satisfied enough with the progress of discussion of the issues that you would find a closure of this thread advisable? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Snow Rise. Thank you for communicating, Steel Dogg, and if you need any help in future, please feel free to ask me or ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 4 July 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:‎Emir of Wikipedia

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

---

Has been extremely unprofessional, this is regarding over article Emilia Clarke‎, firstly he removed content which was referenced by multiple sources, he failed to correct an error, when I restored the content which was sourced, he reverted me again, I went and corrected the error, I told the guy in private that he needs to do his homework, i.e by reading the citations and stop being deconstructive on his talkpage, he unprofessionally moved a private conversation back to Emilia Clarke talk page having a go at me for messing it up when I never did it in the first place, I would like an admin to remove the talkpage comments and strike it off the system, I have found Emir actions of responding on Clarke's talk page highly offensive and extremely actionable. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is "private". Just sayin'... - wolf 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Erm. Can we please keep this accurate please. I did not remove content referenced by multiple sources, what I removed was content referenced by sources Chrissymad removed. The "error" which you accuse me of failing to correct even though you introduced it is a discrepancy between sources as mentioned on the article talkpage. You restored the content with error not me. I am sorry if you found my actions offensive, I apologise that was not my intention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the thread from the article Talk page. Emir shouldn't have moved Govvy's comments. The rest sounds like a content dispute to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I am sorry about moving the comments, just thought it would be helpful for other users to be able to discuss on the issues. Now that the thread has been removed where should we resolve this "content dispute"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

On the article Talk page. You can start a thread but only with your own comments and focus on the content, not other editors, regardless of what they might say on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Her year of birth is in the citation, I don't understand Emir why didn't correct it. All I did was restore what I saw was sourced and had read before, I don't remember her DOB being changed, I really didn't notice that it didn't match the citation. I don't understand hr can't fix a simple problem, or why you use page mover rights to public pages to square off with people. That is kind of an abuse of page mover rights. Govvy (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Her day of birth varies in citations. I didn't "correct" it as others sources varied. What you did was restored content that was sourced to a citation removed by another editor. You should have noticed that it didn't match the citation, we have to be careful with BLPs. I was fixing the problem that you made. What do page move rights have to do with anything here? How did I abuse them? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: - just out of curiosity, if "Emir of WP" wants to discuss issues about an article on the article talk page instead of their user talk page, can't they do that, and quote comments posted to their user talk page as reference? (Like I said, just curious...) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• In this instance the comments Govvy left on Emir's Talk page were not conducive to a constructive discussion about content. I should have been clearer in my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: And even if they had been, it is generally not permissible to move an individual's comments to a TP or forum where they did not themselves choose to express those thoughts. Context is important to comments and there are some things an editor might care to express in one space which they would not like to raise in another, for any number of legitimate reasons. Also, the entire process of collaborative discourse on the project would unravel if any editor who was party to a discussion had a greenlight to move the entire thing to another forum that they thought may be more favourable to their views. Of course, there are some exceptions to the general prohibition against moves; complaints and inquiries can be moved from one forum to another for administrative purposes (ideally by admins), but for most discussions its better to just engage in the space where the discussion starts, or not at all. If one really feels the need for the discussion to continue elsewhere, they can always create a new thread in the target space and link to the previous discussion, as Bbb23 advised in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, if someone removes content derived from unreliable sources, we praise them: we don't haul them to WP:ANI. Would you please explain why you believe these sources to be reliable secondary sources? For example, this article: does Celebs Now have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Where did author Sarah Tetteh get her information? Is she a media studies scholar who studies current TV? If not, is this article reviewed by other scholars, or is it merely reviewed by a journalist whose only responsibilities are quickly creating content that will sell without getting the publication sued? Without sterling credentials in a specific field, we cannot trust a source that cites no sources at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The reason why I went to ANI wasn't intended to be about the content dispute, it was simply the fact that Emir moved the talkpage post from his userspace to the article userspace. I was totally against that and believe that shouldn't of been done and on top of that felt he violated his mover rights. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved it as it was a content dispute with BLP implications, in such a case we should not hide things on one editors talkpage but it on the talkpage of the article where the issue is present. Sorry that you felt that was inappropriate, it was not my intent to hurt you. Can you also explain this violation of my "mover rights" though please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving a thread another editor has started on one's talk page which is primarily about a specific article's content to that article's talk page is appropriate. Make sure you note the move, include a diff of the original comment and do not copy the signature. This is no different from saying "Per your comment on my talk page [diff]..." the quote just makes it easier to follow. Discussion about content belongs with the article. The only other proper response is to hat the thread and instruct the OP to copy it instead. The later may be a bit more 'proper' but I can see a hostile editor then complaining about one then being 'unresponsive', 'snooty', or some other thing. I would be very suspect of the motivations of an editor who wanted their comment kept out of an article's talk history enough to raise a stink over the former. Jbh ^Talk 22:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 and his assessment of what took place. Emir may have stepped over the line. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see he messed up procedurally ie he copied the signature, did not note it was moved and did not leave a diff. What I do not see is any malice or intent to deceive nor any indication that he would not do it properly if the situation were to arise again. So, yeah, he stepped over the line but I do not see a reason to sanction him at this point.

I will also note the existence of the {{moved to}} and {{moved from}} templates which documentation includes an example wherein the entire text, including signature, is shown being moved from one page to another so, in practice, moving entire threads, signatures and all, is endorsed so long as one indicates a change of venue occurred. This happens with some degree of regularity between AN and ANI. Personally, I still think, in a new thread like the one under discussion, the signature should not be copied and a diff of the original edit included but there seems to be some wiggle room even for that. Jbh ^Talk 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 02:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Govvy: this has nothing to do with WP:PAGEMOVER rights. You have been here 13 year, have made 13000+ edits and have extended rights yourself. It is expected that you know to look up what an advanced permission is before you start accusing others of abusing it. Please either explain how +extendedmover was abused or strike the accusation. As things stand it really hurts credibility. Jbh ^Talk 23:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Really, quoting how long and how many edits someone has and expect them to know about everything from quantum theory to mover rights? I can only report what I saw and was upset about at the time, it was that Emilia Clarke talkpage had this (moved from User talk:Emir of Wikipedia with a diff of 848429532). Which told me it was done by mover rights. Besides after I calmed down I felt always reliable Bbb23 dealt with the issue. I just felt that Emir should be told and felt it's wasn't right to use his mover rights in this way, and a few people above have already pointed that out also. Besides, maybe we can close this now and maybe move on? Govvy (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia are you satisfied with the resolution of matters? I am happy to NAC the thread if so. This really does seem like a case of overlapping (but ultimately minor) miscommunications. I think everyone learned to be just a little more cautious of some small technicalities, and neither of you seems to feel the need to micro-analyze further, I get the sense. Indeed, the fine deconstruction of both your and Govvy's actions by third parties (while good-faith and on-point) can probably serve only to make this a tenser memory, and I'd rather we sent you two back to work with a good chance of completely mending the fence. Shall I close? Snow ^{let's rap} 01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you not even now read what page mover rights are??!! He did not move a page and suppress the redirect, which is the main thing page movers can do that other editors can not – this would be known to an editor who had, responsibly, read about a right they did not previously know of. All he did was a copy-paste and properly noted in the edit summary that the text was moved as well as the diff number of your edit on his talk page to maintain attribution. I noted your not insignificant tenure and experience here because, unlike a newbie, you should know to click on the blue link that describes a user right which you are, very obviously, completely unfamiliar with. That you have still failed to do so causes me a great deal of concern. As does your statement above "it's wasn't right to use his mover rights in this way, and a few people above have already pointed that out also."^{(emp mine)} No. No one agreed he abused page mover because it was not used. An accusation of tool misuse is a very serious thing. In point of fact it is a personal attack. I do not believe you are making that attack out of malice but, nonetheless, you have made an un-retracted personal attack. I know it is silly to expect people to own up to their errors here. All I can say is, obstinate ignorance is a bad characteristic to demonstrate in any conflict resolution forum and avoiding doing so, even if late, tends to earn one respect.

Yes, Emir technically messed up by copying your post and including your signature. I disagree with Bbb23 completely removing Emir's response from the article talk page. Arguably it was as bad or worse a call as copying your comment wholesale since it removed another editor's comment when it could have been salvaged by replacing your comment with a note saying it was removed and that the following text is in reply to [diff of your original comment].

All that said, you are correct, the best thing to do here is close this. Please, regardless of whether you acknowledge it here, take care to understand what an advanced permission is before you accuse someone of abusing it. Also consider that a simple hey, please do not copy my signature would probably have worked; as would simply editing the talk page text to indicate, in the visible text, your comment had been copied from elsewhere. What you can not do is require that the conversation take place on another editor's talk page rather than the article's talk page. Better yet; do not leave snarky comments on user talk pages demanding "Stop being deconstructive, this is terrible way to editor wikipedia, please read the citations, fix the problems " [236] That is just plain rude. Jbh ^Talk 02:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, it's a warm sunny day and you're standing in a park on lovely soft plush grass. Suddenly two little men sit on your shoulders, do you listen to the red guy with the pitch fork and go stab some people, or do you go with the other little guy, be high and mighty and spit on people from top of a high wall? Or choose the option everyone forgets, ignore both the little guys stay on the nice soft plush ground, so you can just enjoy the weather in peace? Govvy (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, Govvy...just no. I agree Jbh is digging into you a little strong here and coming down much more on Emir's side and against yours than the rest of us (who mostly find ourselves somewhere closer to the midway point between your perspectives). But don't do the patronizing, "Hey fella, you can let it go. Wouldn't you rather be easy going and even tempered (like me)?" thing. Nobody likes that. Since the first time someone tried it in the bronze age through this occasion right here, nobody. Remember, you opened this thread and I have to agree with Jbh on a couple of things, chief among them that you could have attempted some dispute resolution here before launching straight into ANI. When you do that, you have to accept that some of your own behaviour will come under scrutiny and may be found subpar by some members of the community. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What that is in service of I have no clue — If you must know I'd take the red guy to the top of the wall; have him stab the blue guy because he is being a little shit and then toss the red guy off to go splat below because he is a murderous thug. I would then enjoy the view whilst I sought out people offering false dichotomies and mock them soundly until they acquired a clue or I found a way to the garden on the other side of the wall that is free of fools.

If you want to engage in further philosophical ramblings and passive-aggressive allegories you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Continuing to do so here is likely to get us both in trouble though. Jbh ^Talk 03:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Emir of Wikipedia does have a history of questionable edits and I sometimes reverted some of them in the past. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:30, 3 July 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.

Removal of AWB Access 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.

---

Moved from The AWB PERM page. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting revocation of access for AlexTheWhovian due to a recent AWB run in which he changed instances of "U.S." to "US" in a couple thousand articles based on a lightly-attended discussion at WT:TV#MOS:US in which he determined consensus to his own question and didn't provide adequate notification of his plans. MOS:US states retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it yet despite clear levels of objection in that discussion section, he proceeded en masse using the AWB tool. Per WP:AWBRULES #3 this was clearly going to be a controversial change, and per #2 he failed to apply the guideline which says to retain usage. By my rough count he made about 2760 edits over 4.5 hours (about 10 edits per minute). Certainly, a much higher level of consensus and notification should have been required prior to such a massive undertaking. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Netoholic @ 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done (automated response): This user already has AutoWikiBrowser access. — MusikBot ^talk 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking bot auto-response as this is a removal request. If this is the wrong forum, let me know. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Please request at WP:AN/I per Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission removed, as using a script to bulk-replace to a preferred style is an absolutely clear-cut breach of WP:AWBRULES. This is a removal without prejudice; AlexTheWhovian can reapply at WP:PERM in the usual way provided they can convince an admin that they'll abide from the rules from now on, and any admin accepting a request for the re-granting of permissions doesn't need to notify or consult with me. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even I don't support removing Alex's AWB rights based on this. Yes – I don't agree with his (or some in WP:TV's) interpretation of MOS:US. And, yes, I don't think he should have mass changed to "US" over "U.S." at all of these articles. But this was a "good faith" action in this case. Let's just agree that those of us editors who don't agree with this can revert "at will" at articles where "U.S." have been used for a long time, as per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:US, and leave it at that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that his attitude regarding this matter, to put it mildly, is "too bad, so sad" about those who weren't made aware of the discussion. A small circle of editors who spend a lot to time at a project page does not equal community consensus. Do an RfC ... notify as many editors who edit TV articles as possible ... and then reach a decision. He shouldn't have taken it upon himself to change every instance of U.S. to US with an AWB. (We may all have dreams of power and influence, but that's not the fuel that runs Wikipedia's engine.) Pyxis Solitary 00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I, too, support the removal of this permission. Alex's attitude is "I'm right, I'm the boss" and everyone else is expected to accept that. His WP:OWN issues and his failures to collaborate (and corresponding seeing himself without blame) are getting worse and worse all the time. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the removal. Alex's edits on Wikipedia lately has been very self-centered and his ownership of Television-related articles is very apparent. MOS:US should not be used in American English articles. Alex didn't gain consensus prior to making them changes and because of that, he should be stripped of his privileges regarding AWB Access. I agree with @Drmargi: that Alex's self-absorbed behavior is getting worse and worse all the time. Alex's autocratic style of editing has to stop. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: There was a discussion here, though it's one of those things that needed more editors than that for such a controversial change. I participated in it myself, though my vote was meant to be more of a neutral one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing in my opinion on this, it's entirely true that Alex does have an attitude problem; I've commented on it many times and Alex has even accused me in the past of opposing everything he does which isn't true but I could see how he thinks that way. He often has conflicts with one editor and I've threatened to come here seeking an IBAN because of it. However, Alex's edits here were good faith. He opened a discussion at WT:TV#MOS:US 25 days ago. It's not as if he just dived straight in and started modifying articles willy nilly. Over the next 6 days 8 editors commented, which is actually pretty good at WT:TV. After that the discussion slowed. So, was it poorly attended? I'd say no based on other WT:TV discussions. It's interesting to note that a couple of people who've posted here, including the person who opened this discussion, have participated in discussions at WT:TV and are pretty vocal themselves, yet didn't bother to participate in the WT:TV discussion until changes had been made. Alex was merely attempting consistency suggested by MOS:US across the TV project - that consistency was supported by other editors so it seems unfair to remove his AWB access simply because he made some good faith edits based on a nearly 4-week-old discussion that seemed to favour his edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt he was acting in good faith, but, as has been established by numerous precedents (some of which have gone all the way to Arbcom), good faith isn't enough when it comes to running scripts to make bulk changes. The wording "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. is in the AWB terms of use for a reason. Even using a script to make bulk changes to bring articles into compliance with the MOS is controversial and strongly advised against; using a script to make bulk changes that aren't recommended by the MOS was never going to be uncontroversial. Per my initial comment I have absolutely no issue with anyone restoring the permission if they feel this was a one-off blip that isn't going to be repeated, or that the removal was enough of a wake-up call that this is unlikely to happen again. ‑ Iridescent 07:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely appropriate. This is the only way to handle people who semi-automatically impose their will on everyone: you've demonstrated that you will not follow the AWB rules, and you should only be able to use it in the future if your assurance of complying with those rules is accepted by other(s) through established processes. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I accept that this AWB rights removal is inevitable. I'm a bit concerned though by people reacting here who don't seem familiar with MOS:US. Could you please, please just take a few minutes to actually read the guideline that is the focus of this dispute before commenting on it? --John (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• ​Astonishing as it may be, I'm familiar with both the wording of the MOS, the discussions that led to that wording, and the wiki-wide meta-discussions about when the MOS should be enforced and when it should be treated as a set of suggestions. Whether or not ATW was acting in compliance with the MOS (he wasn't) is almost irrelevant; we strip AWB access for people who use it to enforce the MOS just as readily if those edits could be considered controversial (and that's a principle that was upheld twice by Arbcom, most recently just a couple of months ago). Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion is currently an Arbitration Enforcement-able arbcom ruling. ‑ Iridescent 13:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems you ignored my reply about objections and finishing/ceasing the edits. -- Alex^TW 13:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm confident you would have read this section of MoS, and I have said I don't disagree with your removal of the tool. I'm indebted to you; I had no idea of the existence of the {{bcc}} template. --John (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Kangaroo Court. No one has allowed Alexthewhovian the chance to defend himself or justify his actions on this topic before taking action. Does Wikipedia not have due process? I'd imagine a lot of these editors quick to jump in have had personal issues with him and aren't exactly speaking from a fair and rational place. Just my 2 cents. Esuka323 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A) Tools removed can be reinstated if there was a mistake, so it's not a big deal. B) No, there is no "due process" as Wikipedia is not a court of law. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

But it acts like one with its own rules and policies when it needs too right? Alex should have been given the opportunity to explain himself here before any action was taken. What happened to impartiality? No one has proven that he has acted in bad faith and abused the rights given to him, so why was action taken so quickly? He should have his rights restored and a note left on his page to say if he makes the same mistake again he'll lose them. Esuka323 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a privately-owned website, not a court of law; we don't do 'impartiality', we don't do 'due process', and editors have no 'rights' other than the right to vanish and the right to fork. We do what's best for the project; if someone is causing problems, we do what's necessary to stop those problems. Incidentally, if you're going to throw around allegations that I'm acting out of some personal animosity, you probably want to provide some evidence for that rather than just fling mud to see if it sticks; since the editor in question have never interacted in any way and as far as I can tell have no interests in common, I suspect you'll find locating such evidence somewhat difficult. ‑ Iridescent 13:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Other than his cocky attitude when his decision and action was questioned, I have no like or dislike of AlexTheWhovian.
  But I do have an issue with trying to sweep this matter under the rug as if it didn't have an impact on Wikipedia. If there was a "kangaroo" -- it was the kangaroo consensus arrived to by Alex.
  When he kick-started AWB and made bulk changes to television articles throughout Wikipedia, and I read the summary of the edit in one of them ... that's when I discovered that a "discussion" among 8 editors in WikiProject Television had been the basis for the change. When I questioned the manner in which this discussion took place and the determined "consensus", his response was:
  "The issue concerned only television articles, hence only the Television WikiProject was required. It may still be "acceptable", but the agreement between the majority of editors here can be clearly seen for the preference of US; no objection was raised to the usage of AWB three days after the discussion either."
  When Netoholic objected and told Alex that "...Using AWB in this way is against the WP:AWBRULES #2 and #3 - you should have sought consensus prior to embarking on that effort....", the response from Alex was:
  "State the policy that says an RFC is required? No? The general consensus in the cited discussion was that US was preferred, so I did seek (and gain) consensus prior to my effort. Your personal opinion is noted, thank you. (I get it, though; people always wants to comment only when something is put into action, and they're a bit mad that they personally missed the discussion.)"
  The guideline in MOS:US remains: "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it."  Personal preference is not a good reason.  Btw: the statement in MOS that says "...The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US"."  is not accurate. What CMS says is:
  "Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations. Please see CMOS 10.4 and 10.33 for guidelines and discussion." – The Chicago Manual of Style Online. (The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, 2017.)
  The "discussion" in WikiProject Television should have been announced. An RfC should have been the method used to determine consensus for a wiki-wide change based on MOS. In this case, the privilege of AWB rights was abused. Alex is not a toddler and should not be treated as one. Pyxis Solitary 00:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally, a chance to defend myself, apologies for the absence. Thank you, Esuka. I've had all day to think about this; great way to start my holidays. I know very well I'm not the easiest editor to get along with, but this has blown well and truly out of hand, what was a good-faith contribution that I did not believe would be controversial.

There was most certainly consensus, as the majority of editors participating in the discussion agreed, and there was no further disagreement. CONSENSUS has no member minimum, CONSENSUS has no time minimum. Would an RFC be preferred? Possibly. Required? No. No further objections were raised in the discussion, no further objections were raised in the revival of the discussion, no further objections were raised in my post about using AWB, no further objections were raised while I was executing the changes. I could have kept posting "Any objections?" multiple times, and it would have made no change. There is no minimum member limit required to make a change and determine a consensus. Clearly the most active members of the Television WikiProject would contribute - that is the basis of basically every WikiProject, the most active are the ones to comment most. I definitely did not hide the discussion; I linked it in every change.

Around the time of this report, I had only had one revert in ~2700 edits. One. The editors who had an issue with the discussion (bar Drmargi and The Optimistic One, reasons explained below) did not participate in the discussion, despite contributing to WT:TV before and during, so I am lead to believe that they deliberately waited to report me, disagreeing with my proposal but deliberately not responding. As Aussie stated, several of them were active on the page - why not contribute to the discussion? Any particular reason?

If this report does not go any further, I will most certainly be filing a report against Iridescent for the harsh and unexplained removal of the permission, and their inability to administrate, without even offering me a chance to revert the edits, which could have easily been done. (As for Drmargi, she appears to oppose me at Wayward Pines, she appears to oppose me at Doctor Who, she appears to oppose me here, so I really think our little lady here is my truest bloodhound, and for The Optimistic One, he is mad that I caught him out for copying my user page content and layout. But this is neither the time or place for that; I just know why they are here.) Back to the topic at hand. -- Alex^TW 13:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple of points – and Alex, I hope you'll at least consider what I am trying to say here... But, firstly, MOS-type edits should not be made en masse unless they have not just "consensus", but OVERWHELMING consensus – this seems to be lost over and over again in these MOS discussions: a "majority" does not demonstrate that a decision is not going to be "controversial" (frankly, only a lack of controversy does). As the editor who initially objected to your proposal over at WP:TV, it is unfortunate that my points, esp. in regards to WP:ENGVAR, were ignored in that discussion in favor of some giant rush for "consistency" – and, let's be clear here: if "consistency" is a virtue on Wikipedia, it is, at best, a very minor virtue, and should be ranked well-below other considerations (the avoidance of unnecessary widespread editor conflict certainly being one of those). Secondly, Iridescent has explained his rationale on his decision, twice, and while it's not what I would have done, he has the backing of both policy and the opinions of other administrators on this, so the idea that he would be "sanctioned" for this is... well, it's simply not going to happen, nor should it, and it's an effort that wouldn't be worth your time. Finally, you may want to ask yourself why you have developed a cadre of editors who are so vociferously opposed to you, and turn up every time you get into hot water – plenty of editors have disagreements with other editors, but few seem to have developed such antagonism from such a large number of other editors as you have. Generally, this is a sign that the problem isn't with the "other editors"... (I.E. When an editor like AussieLegend says you have an "attitude problem", it's probably time to pay attention.) Again, I am not posting this to "pile on" – I'm posting this in the hopes that it will finally lead to some self-reflection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I know I have an attitude problem. I recognize that. Always have, IRL, online, that's just who I am. I'm not changing myself for Wikipedia. I don't care about those that are antagonistic (to their scale) to me. And I recognize, after the dispute caused after my edits, that the level of consensus may not have been enough to a few choice editors, and that's what's caused this. We're all wrong every now and then; I thought it was enough, it was not. -- Alex^TW 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex, you would do well to listen to Iridescent and IJBall. As far as it goes, your privilege has been quite properly removed, and if you wanted it back, you would have to convince us that you will not misuse it again. As frustrating as it is, edits like these do need a super-strong consensus to implement, and if someone complains, the edits are de facto controversial and need to be reconsidered. --John (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex, you forgot to mention the ordeal I had to go through with you for the last 5 months on Wikipedia. Your smarky attitude towards editors such as myself and @Drmargi: is downright unacceptable for a person who has been editing Wikipedia as long as you have. Your condescending comments towards myself and Drmargi, not to mention the fact that your treating Drmargi differently because of her gender, is completely out of order. I even considered quitting Wikipedia at one stage because of your selfish autocracy, and i'm sure i'm not the only one either. When several editors have a problem with you, there's something really wrong. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that Alex reached out to me to help you source ratings for the Better Call Saul draft pages, which at the time were in varying states of condition and not suited for publication to the mainspace. I did notice over the course of a few months you were persistent in your efforts to get the pages moved from draft, especially the season four page which was denied by many people. I don't think you have much in the way of an argument to make here as Alex was clearly adhering to policy on the pages and any such ordeal was one of your own creation. I did suggest to you that you take a step back on your talk page a while back, but nevertheless you persisted. Not to mention you shouldn't accuse people of sexism without proof first, that's quite a serious accusation there and one you're unlikely to be able to support. Esuka323 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow! he made some helpful edits, still doesn't justify his actions, which overshadows his (sometimes) helpful contributions. As for adhering to policies, Alex deliberately declined the third season article just out of spite because of his hatred for me. As i didn't believe that Alex's reason for declining was a reasonable one, I submitted it again and it was passed by an editor (NOT Alex!). I'm not the only one who's been making accusations against Alex either. And he IS treating Drmargi differently based on her gender. Go see Alex's snotty message on his talk page telling me to "go away" (which i'm not allowed to respond to because he declared: "You cannot post on my talk page anymore.") He also accused me of "jumping on the hype train". I completely agree with AussieLegend's statement that Alex has an "attitude problem". Esuka, there's something seriously wrong when your the only person defending Alex in this debate. Think with rationally Esuka. Alex is in the wrong here. Wake up! The Optimistic One (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Less of the unsubstantiated claims please. Otherwise you risk the discussion turning more farcical. What happened to discussing his use of the rights? Many people seem to be more interested in attacking his character rather than discussing the issue at hand. I believe he made an honest mistake and was unfairly stripped of his rights. More so because those attacking his character shaped the narrative and got the result they wanted before he explained his actions. That's unfair. I think anyone accused deserves the right to a fair hearing. Esuka323 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

He did explain his reason. You haven't bothered to read his responses to the editors who questioned them. (Hint: go ^ up 6 comments above yours.) Pyxis Solitary 01:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about how action was taken against Alex before any proper discussion had taken place. No one's denying that he's at fault for carrying out such a large scale change with the rights awarded to him without a broader consensus, but can anyone rationally say that he honestly deserves to lose those rights for reasons other than what they personally think of him? People make mistakes, it happens. I'd imagine there's plenty of people with power out there on Wikipedia that have made their fair share of mistakes, but did they get the same sort of treatment? Esuka323 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors are reprimanded and/or rights revoked all the time for specific reasons. AWD rules include:
# Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices.
# Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale.
Eight editors (Alex among them) deciding how to apply a preference across-the-board, basing it on MOS, in a convo that was limited to those who linger in WP:TV, and thereby knew about it, is not a Wikipedia community-majority decision. Alex has been a registered editor since 13 August 2014. We're not discussing an editor who didn't know about RfC. Pyxis Solitary 02:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: If you have an issue with my attitude and editing that is not related to this particular discussion and issue, then take it elsewhere. This is not the place for you to rant about me, it's a place to discuss the validity of my AWB edits. You're welcome for the help I gave you. Care to get back on topic, please? -- Alex^TW 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I thought you weren't gonna talk to me anymore since you asked me to stop messaging you from now on. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if i didn't know about MOS:US and MOS:U.S. (according to you via your talk page), you still violated WP:AWBRULES. You deserve to lose them rights. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. This noticeboard is perfectly fine. For what it's worth, there is no hatred against you. I neither like nor dislike you. I even helped you with the Season 1 page by moving it to the draft and expanding it for you first, when Doc was constantly deleting the content you were putting in. Your opinion, nevertheless, is always valued, and it's always good to learn about new guidelines. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I know. You made some helpful contributions to Wikipedia along with myself. I also thanked you on numerous occasions for that. But lately you've got an attitude problem Alex. Lose the attitude and stop editing in an autocratic style and maybe other editors like myself will like you more. Just some advice. Hope you grasp it in well. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to be "liked". I'm here to edit, that's it, and it's not "autocratic" when others here are also agreeing with the changes. But cheers for the advice. -- Alex^TW 14:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Support revocation of permissions And frankly, I'm a little disconcerted that, even with the depth of discussion above, not one person has really hit upon why this was such a massive violation of basic policy. Policy forbids decisions made by small cliques at Wikiprojects from being asserted as "consensus" on individual articles (let alone the staggering number of articles that were altered in this instance). That's long-standing community consensus and has been further enshrined in ArbCom cases. This is the second time I've had cause to note this basic principle of community consensus on the noticeboard in the last 24 hours, so maybe it is just not being effectively communicated to editors who have joined the project in recent years, but anybody for whom this rule (and the general principle that broad changes across large numbers of articles need to be supported by a high standard of consensus) is not second nature is not themselves ready for AWB. Further, while I haven't looked into the discussions in detail, if the descriptions of Alex's single-mindedness are even partially true, they should not have access to a tool that let's them quickly override the perspectives of huge numbers of editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Site-wide guidelines are not "small cliques at Wikiprojects". Trust me, I'm the number-one WP:CONLEVEL fan, I assure you. But this actually comes from MOS:US in the main MoS page. The fact that the filer of this AN chooses to dwell on the narrower MOS:TV restatement of the same preference for dropping the dots from the initialism isn't substantive. The AWB run still wasn't a good idea, but it was emphatically not some wikiproject clique trying to push something. And I have to rescind that; comments below indicate that it actually was predicated on "my wikiproject wants" rather than on the MOS:US and MOS:TV guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. [Substantially revised in light of later information below.] Decline removal of AWB; an admonition is sufficient, and there are extenuating circumstances to an extent. While it wasn't the best idea, a) Alex is aware of that and contrite, and has stopped (at least for now); b) it was a good-faith action based on actual guidelines (MOS:US and MOS:TV), just over-interpreting – but also based on mistaken belief that wikiprojects dictate content at articles over which they claim scope; c) was not "clearly going to be a controversial change", unless you're someone who dwells on punctuation disputes; d) there's no indication there'll be a repeat action of this kind (sanctions must be preventative not punitive); e) it's likely the project will lose a larger amount of AWB-mediated productivity from this constructive editor than AWB errors it would prevent by removing the tool (maybe); and f) consensus on this sort of thing has been quite unclear (aside from the WP:CONLEVEL part).

  There are two concurrent threads at WT:MOS about the propriety and impropriety of both mass changes of this sort and mass reversions of them: WT:MOS#Updating "Mankind" (very long) and WT:MOS#Input on potential RfC on U.S. vs US (shorter). Consensus is strongly leaning toward "don't do that, per MOS:RETAIN", because in both cases the other alternative isn't against MoS, so it wasn't actually an outright error to go mass-correct. This would not have been entirely clear to every editor. And it still isn't even clear to everyone in the ongoing discussions – including a different user with AWB access who thinks it's perfectly fine to use it to go on mass-reversion sprees (and vowing to do it again), also against RETAIN! (If two versions are acceptable, then editwarring over them should stop, not be doubled-down upon in some tit-for-tat WP:POINT exercise.)

  In short: It's not right to throw the tool-ban hammer against one editor for something that people are still debating whether there should be new rules about.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey SMcCandlish, it seems you left a (presumably unintentionally) incomplete response to me at the same time as this general comment? Am I reading the revision history correctly? Anyway, I'm just going to go with that reading and respond here to both parts of your comments:

I don't disagree with everything you say, but there are very concerning behaviours and statements here. This comment indicates either a complete ignorance or patent rejection of the WP:Advice pages standard, neither of which can be allowed to co-exist with access to AWB. Groups of editors working out of Wikiprojects are explicitly forbidden from determining broad content standards to apply to all articles they self-determine to be within their remit. And here not only did Alex not understand that the "consensus" he was establishing was invalid, he went further to say that only the editors of that project needed to be consulted. I mean, yowsa, that's just such a perfectly complete inversion of every fundamental and long-standing point of community consensus in this area.

I totally believe that Alex made these moves in good faith and was caught off guard when they became so controversial. But that's rather what has me worried here. That and a certain degree of WP:IDHT that is continuing even now. Even putting the Wikiproject discussion to the side for a moment, I agree with others here that Alex should also have recognized that, however MoS has evolved on an issue, no sweeping change across thousands of articles should be taken without a considerable community mandate achieved through a well-publicized discussion at a centralized discussion space. These are very basic (or at most, intermediate) principles of how one establishes consensus for broad changes on the project and I just can't see the wisdom of leaving AWB with someone who doesn't recognize them and is kind of resistant to even acknowledging how big a blunder this was. The fact that others may have similarly problematic propensities is not an argument for letting Alex keep the tool, it's an argument for asking who else needs some scrutiny. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thanks for pointing out that statement about WP:WPTV. I've commented again below. I'm not seeing the incomplete comment. Where should I be looking? [begins new intravenous flow of coffee]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: there's a half post immediately above the bullet for your last comment that trails off with "because the porter"; it looked like you added it with your main comment in the edit history, but I wasn't 100% sure if maybe it was something someone else said that you reintroduced that had been removed through an editing snaffu. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I think it was going to say something about the proper (not porter) rationale being MOS:US's real but non-absolute preference, but that being misinterpreted as license to mass-change, and it now being under discussion at WT:MOS anyway. Or something like that. I just ended up posting a note that I had to rescind it, given what ATW has said below, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It was less that I stopped, more that I'd finished. I wasn't planning on continuing, nor was I planning on the controversy that several editors that were watching the thread but didn't contribute would raise for my edits. Sanctions must indeed be preventative, as I've been told by dozens of administrators over the years, which is why I was surprised by this. If I had been directly asked by an administrator, I would have been more than happy to actually set up AWB to reverse the edits, and gain a further consensus for the topic. But, alas, the administrator involved failed to think of this situation, meaning that the controversial edits remain.

As for Snow, yes, I believe only the TV WikiProject needed to be consulted, even now. That's not IDHT, I do hear it, it's just my opinion that doesn't agree with your own, as is supported by other editors below. It regarded television articles only, not any others. I did not consider it any sweeping change at the time. Yes, there were a lot of edits, but I wasn't making any massive change that modified the entire contents of the article to some great extent, or changing the format to something brand new. It was removing two periods. Read my above comment on why AWB should not have been removed, and how this could have been rapidly fixed. Despite all of this, the issue remains. -- Alex^TW 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See first law of holes and WP:IDHT. We have an actual guideline at WP:PROJPAGE and an actual policy at WP:CONLEVEL telling you that your interpretation is flat-out wrong, plus everyone else here saying that. What a wikiproject wants is utterly irrelevant. See previous ArbCom decisions, such as WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, specifically about wikiprojects trying to push style matters and being told they cannot do that. Even the concept "what a wikiproject wants" is wrongheaded; a wikiproject is not a hive mind, nor an entity unto itself. Nor does virtually any article fall under the scope of a single project (whether it's only been tagged by one so far or not). We have site-wide style guidelines for a reason. Exceptions to them (or a decision to "enforce" something in them more strictly than is required) is not determined by a wikiproject but on a per-article basis by the consensus of editor at that page, for what is best for that page.

The possibly defensible rationale for what you did was MOS:US and MOS:TV not being entirely clear about "U.S." But MOS:TV is not WP:OWNed by the WP:WPTV wikiproject; it's a site-wide guideline. WP:WPTV has no magical say in the matter any more than any other editors do (see also WP:VESTED, WP:SUPERVOTE, WP:FALSECONSENSUS; while these are essays, they accurately encapsulate the Wikipedian Zeitgeist on this sort of thing.

You've basically foot-shot yourself by insisting otherwise. I tried to help you, but you will probably lose AWB access now because, it turns out, you really don't understand the limits of its use or what kinds of mass edits are permissible for what reasons. "Me and three other guys at a wikiproject said so" is definitely not one. This is frankly really disappointing; you definitely should have known better than this by now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"It was removing two periods." You still don't get it, do you? With this, I don't think pride is ever going to get out of the way before the fall. Pyxis Solitary 00:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural Question There is an open procedural question here. What is the correct forum to establish consensus on mass changes like this? Is it WP:BRFA? The page WP:AWB simply says at the appropriate venue, which is useless here. I'm not sure whether editors feel Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television was not the appropriate venue here, or that the editors there mis-interpreted wider policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The preferred process and location to greenlight a new and widely applicable content standard (when you don't want to go full WP:PROPOSAL) is usually an RfC at WP:VPP, widely publicized across central discussion spaces. This generally garners the broadest community involvement and prevents parties from gaming (consciously or unconsciously) walled garden forums. WikiProjects are typically the worst possible place to hold such a discussion, per the same concerns, but some editors have previously suggested that you can technically hold an open RfC at a project if you publicize it widely enough and generally encourage broad community involvement. But VPP is definitely the superior forum if you want a well-established consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a "new and widely applicable content standard", though. At least AlexTheWhovian isn't trying to make one. A local consensus does seem to be a good reason to change from U.S. to US on a variety of articles, which is thus permitted by the current wording of MOS. I haven't followed the discussions regarding that MOS guideline; if that wording is still disputed this may need to go to RFC (and failing that, ARBCOM). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOTPOL (WP:ASSISTED) covers use of automated and semi-automated tools. Essentially if you are talking changes to articles in their thousands, it should have gone to BRFA. At this point, I'm thinking a change needs to be made to BOTPOL to make it explicit that automated/semi-automated changes above a certain article number require BRFA in addition to any other discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex came to WT:TV and asked should we, the TV project, be complying with what MOS:US now says and, btw, it also says etc. If you want to gauge the TV project's opinion on what the TV project members think should be done within the TV project then WT:TV is the place to go, not VPP where you'll find even fewer TV article editors. If we're going to go to VPP for all decisions on whether we should be complying with the MoS, then what is the point of projects at all? The general consensus at the discussion (there were a couple of dissenters) was that US should be used (I didn't participate because I really don't care) and so, after 14 days, Alex said he was going to do an AWB run without a single complaint or any opposition in the 9.5 days between then and when he started his AWB run. Since consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident, it's reasonable that Alex believed he had consensus for his edits when he started. Pulling his AWB permission because of that is akin to pulling someone's drivers license for doing 1km/h over the speed limit. While I'm all for controlling the use of automated and semi-automated tools, I don't think Alex's edits were unreasonable given the circumstances. He was, after all, just removing periods. For those who don't edit TV programs much, or at all, I should point out that consistency across the TV project is very important because so much content is transcluded between articles. Without rigid adherence to consistency guidelines it's quite possible to get articles using multiple formats. An editor may have to fix 20 or 30 articles in order to repair a problem in another. However, editors who aren't active in TV articles seem to have a problem understanding that. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

After reading through all of these new comments, I understand everyone's position, but still agree with Aussie. I did not make any changes outside of the Television WikiProject, and thus, there would have been minimal confusion outside of this project. For example, nobody from the Dentistry WikiProject would have come to me, confused, and asked me what was happening to their dentistry articles. VPP is definitely widely read, but does not relate directly to the Television project, and thus, opinions from television-article editors are much more valued than editors who have never edited a television article. (Still not IDHT, just voicing my opinion on the now-existing dispute.) -- Alex^TW 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I know it's tough to read every comment in a long discussion, but selective reading of comments creates selective responses. (Just to be clear: no one is being targeted.)
* Re "good faith":  as the time-worn proverb says: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
* Re the time between start of WT:TV discussion and implementation of "consensus":  what consensus? Community-wide? No. Television editors-wide? No. A consensus was assumed because editors who don't normally spend time at WT:TV didn't know what was going on. And this should not be ignored or poo-pooed.
* Re MOS:US:  whoever composed that section gave the "Chicago Manual of Style" as a source regarding punctuation. But what is provided in that section is NOT what CMS actually says. (I'm not going to repeat it. You can read it in my comment posted above at 00:55, 3 July 2018 or in WT:TV. CMS was referred in the WT:TV discussion. Something needs to be done about how CMS is used in MOS as a U.S. vs US guideline. Pyxis Solitary 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Should this not be summarized by an uninvolved editor? Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support revocation - AWB 2 and 3 state and I quote

"'Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale." and

"Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits."

Alex should've started an RFC on this first - Discussion's great but it's not exactly consensus as such, Had Alex started an RFC and make it clear they planned to carry out this work then this thread wouldn't be here now. –Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As has been stated multiple times by both myself and supporting editors (yes, I get that this discussion is TL;DR, but please do try), I believed that the consensus displayed was enough and that it would not be controversial. Others agree with this in this very discussion. Now, days after my edits, I see I may have been incorrect in that belief, despite other editors supporting my actions. Not sure about that second part; it definitely had a noticeable effect, and at the time of my changes, nobody had raised continuing disagreement (and none based on that guideline). -- Alex^TW

Tbh it's an easy mistake to make, Personally reading your reply above I would support readding the AWB script providing you obviously start rfcs before doing any work, As I said easy mistake to make. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex, you and another editor here may be operating under the belief that you can be greenlit to make changes across thousands of articles through a local consensus discussion by eight editors at a WikiProject, but you are both very much mistaken. This is a matter of incredibly broad and well-established community consensus going back virtually as long as there have been WikiProjects. It's been strengthened in ArbCom cases where the Arbs made clear that this is outright disruptive and cause for sanctions. You've been directed in this very discussion to policy pages were these principles are codified in very plain language. But you seem to be, at best, half internalizing the concerns being voiced here. You recognize that you "may have been incorrect" in whether you had sufficient support for a change on this scope (trust me, you didn't), but then you also are rejecting basic community principles about how to go about seeking this consensus. That's what I meant when I mentioned a degree of IDHT here, and it's why I don't think you are going to be trusted with AWB again any time soon.

And look, I honestly do have a certain amount of sympathy for you. I took a look at the AWB rules and saw that they specifically suggests WikiProjects as a place to seek consensus, and that just sets you up for trouble; only if very specific conditions are met is a WikiProject ever a place to seek binding consensus on whether and how to alter individual articles--conditions I doubt any user of AWB has ever met if they went to seek consensus at WikiProject, because they haven't been properly informed that it has to be an RfC broadly promoted in centralized discussions, ect., ect. So it's hard to blame you for not understanding the nuances that the tool's own (tiny and insufficient) guidance section fails to mention. That's something that should be fixed post-haste. Also, this is not the first time even this week where editors had to be reminded of the limitations of the scope of a WikiProject's authority to authorize changes to the articles within their topic area, so it's quite clear we as a community are not effectively communicating this facet of policy to those who joined the project well after the episodes of disruption that lead us to adopt those principles. And lastly, at the end of the day, you're right: U.S.-->US is hardly an earth shattering change to any single article.

But none of that eases my underlying concerns here. Honestly, if I thought you understood and had internalized the points I am trying (and others have tried) to emphasize here, I would have supported your being given back the tool. But you just have way too single-minded and laissez-faire a notion of what it takes to constitute consensus for broadly-applied changes for me to feel comfortable with your having access to a tool that lets you to, in a single click, run roughshod over articles edited by hundreds of thousands of contributors. That's a little unfair, because the problems here are bigger than you, but for me this is an analysis in which equity has to take a back seat to the precautionary principle. And I don't think I'm alone in that. Which is why you are not seeing more resistance to the lightning fast revocation of the tool, which would usually raise our collective eyebrows. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• No Action I'm going to make a proposal at the AWB page to try t clarify what consensus is needed for these changes and when. I don't see a need for any action here; Iridescent's removal was correct. It is also clearly without prejudice to restoration. Whenever ATW plans to do some other task, they should request the permission be restored at WP:PERM (and mention this thread). I expect that restoration once the current situation is resolved will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So, to sum up my view: my permission was removed for what I (still) feel was an acceptable change. Okay... And? And that's it. I'll just file for bot approval from now on for my worthwhile contributions, and apply for the permission again later on. Continue talking about me (you're not the only ones to enjoy doing it), I'm not fazed either way, I've nothing further to add here. (Don't @ me.) -- Alex^TW 04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Page moves out of process

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

---

Good afternoon. Earlier today, I placed this request at WP:RM/TR. User:Anthony Appleyard kindly approved it and completed the move. Later, the move was disputed by User:Krakkos who also disgrees with this CFD proposal, which is relevant to the article move. Krakkos wrote to Anthony Appleyard here, objecting to his decision, and also wrote to User:Florian Blaschke, from whom he seems to be canvassing for support as well as implying that I (the certain user) am incompetent.

Without going through any formal procedure such as WP:RM/TR or seeking any approval, Krakkos has now reverted the page move from Ancient peoples of Anatolia back to Anatolian peoples. Please see this re talk page and this re article.

As this is ongoing, could someone please investigate? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I have informed User:Krakkos of this WP:ANI topic and asked him to contribute. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This would seem to be a content dispute at present, not a behavioural one matter. The request was listed under "noncontroversial move requests" and since another editor disagrees with the move, it is by definition "controversial" as that nomenclature is used on this project. RM/TR serves as facilitation of moves--someone answering your request does not constitute consensus or a rubber stamp of your perspective that the move is warranted and the correct editorial decision, particularly if it is listed as uncontroversial when you make the request. Under these circumstances, Karkkos is within the remit of WP:BRD to challenge and revert the move (though if I had been in his shoes I would have started a discussion first instead of leading with a revert). Your next step should the talk page to discuss the matter and see if you can arrive at an agreement (with any other involved editors) as to how to proceed. If you cannot, you might consider using WP:Third opinion or WP:RfC to resolve the matter. Best of luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thank you for the explanation. There is the CFD on one aspect of the improvements I've been trying to make. I will use a discussion process to try and sort out the issues with the two articles. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, i would like to note that my move was done by a mistake. Had the move been intentional i would have left an explanation when performing it. Concerning edits made "out of process", please note that Izzat Kutebar has been emptying Anatolian peoples, the category he wants deleted, before any decision has been made on it's deletion. Regarding the comment i left at the talk page of User:Florian Blaschke, this was simply done because he has a M. A. in Indo-European studies, which is the topic of this dispure. I have no idea what his position, if he has any, will be. That is not canvassing. Krakkos (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems that Izzat is now committed to resolving this via a consensus discussion, so I'm confident you can both resolve the matter amicably from here. It seems likely you may need RfC to do so, given the larger context and apparently strong disagreement on multiple underlying issues, but, afterall, that's what it's there for! Snow ^{let's rap} 14:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually Izzat, I want to correct part of what I said; it seems that RM/TR does request that challenges to moves facilitated there be raised on that page, so it's possible that you could require (or at least strongly urge) that Krakkos approach the matter through that space. It's a grey area though, and in any event I would urge you not to re-revert the move (which we must AGF that Krakkos made without intent to thwart normal process) and instead try to generate a consensus on the talk page of whatever titlespace the article currently resides at. In any event, that manner of discussion is almost certainly the resolution you will be asked to attempt here when the challenge is reviewed. Again, best of luck! Snow ^{let's rap} 14:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I second that no admin intervention is needed here. Thanks, ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note: Snow, I saw you modify your comment after it had been replied to. I know it was a small change, one word, but that's still not kosher. Please don't modify already replied to comments. --Tarage (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with that standard, but in this instance I didn't see how the change made any difference to the meaning of my comment or the other user's response. However, given your concerns and their reasonable expression, I've applied the TPG-recommended solution to this situation and notated the altered wording with a strike-through, so that the change is more obvious. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't actionable, and borders on WP:BOOMERANGable. RM/TR is just a request to do a move you can't or won't bother to do manually; admins accept on good faith that the moves proposed there are non-controversial, and you can even be sanctioned if you keep listing controversial ones in /TR. Anyone who objects to a "non-controversial" move can list it for reversal at another section at /TR, which means necessarily that they can also just go manually move it back. The proper procedure at this point is to do a full WP:RM.

  Worse, the CfD discussion doesn't at all indicate a consensus for anything other than that "Anatolian peoples" and "Ancient peoples of Anatolia" are not the same topic (that discussion is still ongoing, too, so an article move of any kind was premature). Full RM was actually the proper procedure for the move in the first place. The reporter's suggestion that they were doing something non-controversial and that reverting it was out-of-process is just ass-backwards; the speedy move was directly against the consensus-so-far at the CfD, which is based on people actually knowing what they're talking about, and was rightly reverted. It's a distinction between ethnolinguistic and human-geography classification. But Izzat Kutebar decided to play WP:IDHT about all of that. I now wonder if there's more going on in relation to Anatolians and other groups in the region with this editor, but I don't feel like contribs-digging right now. An admonition to not ignore the objections of others should be sufficient.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolian peoples closed (WP:SNOW keep, then withdrawn by nom).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 3 July 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.

---

Edit warring (removal of sourced information with false accusations) at Kartik Aaryan’s page with grotesque personal attack directed towards me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to remove your biased views on justifying why someone did misogynist films. Also, there was nothing personal attack there. I just said are you taking money or is he your friend since you live in Mumbai and have film making aspirations. It was based on your biased edits on this article. Also you can't deal with constructive criticism and as a result see those as personal attack.Krish | Talk 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information? Seriously Krimuk? Your edit saying an actor started doing sexist/misogynist films because his moral based/support to women/feminist films failed at the Box office, is very biased and justification for something you have no right to do. This "Aaryan went on to play the romantic interest of the lead female characters in Akaash Vani (2013) and Kaanchi: The Unbreakable (2014), but the films failed commercially. He subsequently collaborated with Ranjan and Bharucha in two more buddy films, Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2 (2015) and Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety (2018). Critics accused these films of misogyny but they were both financial successes." makes it clear you want to notify the reader that this poor guy did sexist films because his feminist films bombed? Isn't this some manipulation? How about writing nothing about it? Also the Administrators should note that he added about his misogunist films in the lead when I told him to do. Earlier, it was all his whitewashing to make this actor look good. What is this? Please explain.Krish | Talk 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Krish! a random sampling of your edit summaries are personal attacks and BLP violations. 1, 2, 3 — Maile (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attack him. He kept reverting my edits which were valid. Also, he asked me to stay away from that article as if he OWNS it Please, for the love of God, stay out of my hair. So I cannot edit an article just because he does not agree with me?Krish | Talk 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to stay way because of your repeated personal attacks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Do not play VICTIM here. You wanted me to stay our because you think I was interfaring in your work. You always take criticism personally and then start acting like victim.Krish | Talk 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That user was also trolling me with comments like "Being compared to Hirani is the biggest honour" and DID NOT reply to me when I opened a disucssion on the talk page.Krish | Talk 22:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

3RR by User: Krimuk2.0

This user Krimuk2.0 has been edit warring on an article when I opposed his biased views. Later he reverted my edits on another article three times to shame me. This editor needs to get BLOCKED. I had added some criticism in the Sanju article which was supported by strong sources yet this editor reverted me three times saying "neutral wording, Please don’t edit war to push manipulate agendas and when I told him that he will soon break 3RR rule Please don’t edit war to push manipulate agendas. Please look at the matter.Krish | Talk 21:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Errrmmm WP:AGF? WP:ASPERSIONS? Your behavior in this matter isn't exactly beyond reproach. Kleuske (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for that BUT this editor does manipulative edits all the time. You can see his biasness in the history of that article when he wrote an edit summary as "what a nice man but he needs good film" or something like that. Its obvious he is biased towards the actor. But how can you justify his 3RR on that other article?Krish | Talk 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. you are supposed to notify the editor in question as per the big red message at the top of this page. Kleuske (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I notified him BUT he reverted my message. Also, he reported me here and didn't post any message on my talk page.Krish | Talk 21:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I missed that. Kleuske (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Krish: Comment on content, not on contributors. Accusations that do not have evidence are personal attacks. Both of y'all are edit warring.

@Krimuk2.0: I would have liked to see actual discussion on the article's talk page (with explanations, reasons, stuff like that), instead of responding to a phrasing issue with "source?"

Frankly, I don't think either of y'all are acting right here. I could say that one or the other is acting worse, but I'm inclined to sit back and wait until one or both of y'all does something block worthy because both of y'all don't seem willing to cooperate with each other (and I better not see "I'm willing, they're not!" as a response, because that would just confirm you aren't assuming good faith from each other). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I responded to the false accusations of propaganda with “source”. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That could have been a lot clearer. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on that article's talk page BUT this editor did not want to participate.Krish | Talk 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How about the homophobic attack and accusations of taking money? Frankly, if he was neutrally discussing a content issue, I would have responded well, but how do you want me to react to such grotesque attacks and accusations? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How is it HOMOPHOBIC? Please explain? If a man is living with another man, it does not make those two homosexuals. Also don't behave as if you don't have Bollywood relations. You yourself have said that you are looking at a career in Bollywood as a writer-director.Krish | Talk 22:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 and Krish!: Both of you need to stop talking about or to the other user, right now. I'm right inclined to block the next person who mentions the other user.

@Krish!: Your personal attacks on Krimuk2.0 were unacceptable, and nothing he's done excuses your behavior. If his approach had been just slightly more professional, I would have blocked you right away (and I'm not going to unblock you if another admin sees things differently).

@Krimuk2.0: If you had gone to the talk page to explain why and how the phrasing you chose was the best possible way to represent sources, if you had avoided trolling Krish! with comments like "Being compared to Hirani is the biggest honour", or if you had at least given complete responses so that anyone besides you could tell what you were saying, I probably would have blocked Krish! when you first filed this. As it is, you exacerbated the situation.

There is a content dispute and a behavioral dispute. The content dispute should be addressed at Talk:Kartik Aaryan, discussing sources and phrasing and using reason and policy. Both of you contributed to the behavioral dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You should not even be editing articles here because you have Bollywood connections. You go to Abhijeet's Durga Puja celebrations with your family, have met the actress you want to cast in your film etc etc. Please say I am wrong.Krish | Talk 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I would like to apologise for my behavior BUT it was not in bad faith. I was just trying to increase the neutrality of those articles. Anyway I am sorry.Krish | Talk 22:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Krish! blocked for continuing to make personal attacks (accusations without evidence) after I just told them not to talk about or to the other user.

@Krimuk2.0: Do not gloat, do not mention Krish! on the talk page, do not even thank me. Go to the article's talk page, leave a note explaining how the material you added best summarizes the sources cited (and maybe explain how the sources meet WP:RS). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) @Ian.thomson: You may wish to check User talk:Krish!#What about Krimuk?. They pinged you, but didn't originally sign their message. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and am typing my response now. They deleted my explanation of things that frankly makes this a WP:CIR case. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Krish!, @Krimuk2.0: please read WP:PA. Also, in regards to WP:BLPTALK BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that they were edit-warring recently here too. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:36, 2 July 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.

Threat?

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

---

I'm not sure this comment rises to the level of a threat, but it's certainly an inappropriate comment for an edit summary, or anywhere else on WP, for that matter. Can someone address it, please? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary revdeleted, IP blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 3 July 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.

Well-meaning editor making very poor edits

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

---

86.188.206.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm concerned about this editor's recent edits (mostly to List of Wheeler Dealers episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). They seem well-meaning enough, but almost all of their edits have been destructive - accidentally breaking table and other markup formatting ([237] and more), and intentionally removing heading markup in order to ask for help repeatedly in edit summaries ([238][239] and plenty more). I've tried to help, but they seem to be ignoring their talk page, and I don't want to just keep reverting. I think an admin may need to step in. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, quite a quandary. What do you do with a neophyte editor who wants to communicate but has not been able to figure out their talk page? It seems like a block would actually be a kindness if it forces them to experiment enough to understand the UI. Have they been editing from this IP as a static matter for a while, do you know? Snow ^{let's rap} 06:04, 4 July 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.

Dream Focus continued 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.

---

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) was cautioned (primarily because I didn't ask for him to be blocked) at ANI, and then blocked, around two weeks ago for endless personal attacks and harassment.[240][241] He's since limited his direct commentary on me to making one more bogus "hounding" accusation[242], but he has fervently refused to remove the personal attacks from his user page despite several requests.[243] I went ahead removed several of the worst ones, and I was hoping he would accept that and start proactively cleaning out the personal attacks and polemic from his user page, but he reverted me without explanation.[244][245] When I asked for an explanation he just said to buzz off.[246][247] I can't see how saying things like people, who spend every waking moment on wikipedia, making insane numbers of edits [these users] delude themselves, beyond hope of rational thought etc. could possibly be acceptable, even if they were written years ago, given that the attacks against me for which he was recently censured were specifically questioning my mental state and saying that I "have no life". (Please note that I recognize that the personal attacks on his user page are not about me; they are about users with similar opinions to me who conflicted with DF years ago, and nothing I wrote here or elsewhere implied I thought they were about me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (edited 20:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC) and 20:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC))

• Support blocking, topic-banning, or one-way interaction banning Dream Focus. This has gone on entirely too long and they refuse to get the point. --Tarage (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. I don't want any contact with him at all, as I have said before. After the previous ANI I did not interact with him at all except to respond when he mentioned me. Dream Focus 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang Hijiri, don't you have something better to do than to edit other people's user pages, especially those of editors you were just feuding with? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do; that's exactly why I asked DF two weeks ago to remove the personal attacks himself, but he refused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's not what happened. The ANI did not end with a block. I have asked him not to follow my contributions, and not to talk to me, and not to post on my talk page. I don't want anything to do with him. As for the block, that was never explained, no diffs given. It expired before anyone could review it. Please look at things in context. As for my user page, he is referring to something I wrote in 2009 and therefore not about him. Please read it in its full context if you wish to comment on it, don't just read his selective misleading quote. User:Dream_Focus#Sign..._what's_the_point_of_continuing? I am a shut-in myself, almost never leaving the house, so its odd when he deleted that from my user page he added in a link in his edit summary [248] to a shut in page that I never linked to anywhere. Dream Focus 20:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note he claims I told him to "buzz off" . I actually said [249] (I already told you to stay off my talk page. And don't edit someone else's user page. That's been there for 9 years, leave it be.) Dream Focus 20:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"buzz off" was not in quotes. Please stop this nitpicking; it didn't work for you last time, and it won't work now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was in quotes. Your wording is misrepresenting what I said. Dream Focus 20:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• He claims I made a "bogus hounding accusation" then links to where I simply complained that he was following my contributions again and editing on a page after I did. [250] Every time he says something he makes it sound far worse than it is. As for the block bit, if anyone cares, he mentioned me [251] and I asked the administrator didn't he tell him to stop following my contributions, he then rants off nonsense, and I get blocked for some reason still not explained. Dream Focus 20:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Both Dream Focus and Hijiri88 should immediately stop editing this thread. Your back and forth bickering is not helping anything here. Let other editors discuss the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps you should. Considering you've now voted twice. Perhaps don't stick your nose into this one this time like you usually do. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW Boomerang I don't care if it's a trout, a block, or a ban, so long as the point is made that this filing is MANIFESTLY disruptive, as is the unending fixation between this pair. The comments that Hijiri is trying to force DF to delete from their user page strike my ear as self-absorbed whinging, no doubt about it, but they aren't a violation of any behavioural policy or principle of community consensus that I am familiar with. The comments aren't directed at particular editors and they aren't particularly biting, WP:UNCIVIL, or WP:POLEMIC. They may give a whiff of woe-is-me-istic soapboxing, but they aren't in even the same universe as attack page content. They certainly don't pertain to Hijiri, who would not arrive on project for another five years after they were made.

However, let's pretend for a moment there were comments here that seriously violated our conduct policies. It would still have been one of the most monumentally bad ideas ever conceived of on this site for Hijiri to have brought this report. We just last month had one of our most convoluted and disruptive discussions to occur in recent memory on this forum to separate these two, which task consumed ridiculous amounts of community time and patience. The parties were lucky to have left the space without sanctions (probably a mistake, in retrospect). DreamFocus was thereafter blocked by Cullen328 just for responding to comments that actually were about him (which block I think was fully advisable, for the record). Why, in this context, Hijiri would think it appropriate to re-enter DF's orbit by appointing himself policeman of years-old content on DF's page is quite beyond my ability to comprehend, but the fact that he actually thought it would be a good idea to bring that matter here and explictly entangle it with his own grievances against DreamFocus shows that the WP:IDHT has hit truly cosmological proportions. And I say this as someone who was slightly more amenable to Hijiri's persective than DFs in the last round.

At this point, the utter lack of respect for the toll these feuds are taking on community resources is such that I would actually support a topic ban from ANI for Hijiri, such that he would need to get approval from an admin to facilitate filing a complaint here. Which I actually think could be the best possible thing for his long-term status here, and there's just been too many of these. I don't know if any such thing has ever been done before and there might be arguments for why it is procedurally infeasible, but I think we need to consider something in that vein. Enough is enough. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Snow is choosing to ignore that Dream has been complacent in the filings as well. Banning Hijiri from ANI would be nonsense if it's not also applied to Dream. Quite frankly I don't understand how you could come to the above conclusion after reading over everything that's happened. --Tarage (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I totally agree that this not been a one-way street, but I am trying to focus on why this filing itself (and Hijiri's decision to engage with DF in this manner just after the last ANI) was such a monumental ill-conceived and disruptive idea. I assure you, if the choice is between applying the sanction to both of them and doing nothing, I'm all for the dual sanctions at this point. This has to stop. I assume that was the thinking when Cullen blocked DF for refusing to drop the stick regarding Hijiri, and if the same results for Hijiri, I would call that equitability. But honestly I am less concerned about balancing the scales than I am about plugging the hole on a needless siphon of community resources. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:30, 3 July 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 do not want to re-open this closed discussion, but I do want to append a note saying that I have given very similar and very forceful warnings to both editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

See here. Kleuske (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And here. Probably an LTA. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an LTA - blocked ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:59, 4 July 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:Mean as Custard reported by User:Emmreads

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

---

Page

The DMZ at Ryerson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mean as custard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [252]
2. [253]
3. [254]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The user keeps reverting the entire page without providing examples of issues or making comments on the talk page so that other editors can continue to improve the content. The user notes that there are issues with promotional material. Compared to the previous version the user keeps reverting it to, the page was updated with a significant increase in the number of external sources as well as edits to improve neutral language to combat this. I reverted the page to the newest version but the user continues to revert the page. When asked on the user's talk page (in an effort to avoid edit warring) for specifics surrounding the issues, the user cited only one sentence. A further request for information, or for more direct edits (rather than total reversion) were not returned. It seems this user has a large number of these discussions across many pages on their user talk page.

Emmreads (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Emmreads - Wrong noticeboard ;-). I think you meant to file this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way - neither of you are in violation of 3RR, but you're both at the stage of being in an edit war. I suggest that instead of filing a report at AN3 that you stop reverting the page and take the discussion to the article's talk page :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Unless you think phrasing such as DMZ is a world-leading non-profit business accelerator, Its vision is to create a world powered by ambitious entrepreneurs, and the DMZ acts as the playbook for startup growth and aims to change entrepreneurs’ lives is perfectly unencyclopaedic and in no way purely corp spamcruft, then, instead of facilitating Emmreads' spamming by sending them to the "correct noteiceboard, smiley" you will thank Mean as custard for doing their level best to keep this place vaguely WP:NPOV and a cruft-shill free zone. The fact that Emreads is ceratinly a spammer and probably part of a sockfarm I make no comment on; but I certainly recognise who is acting in the best interests of the encyclopaedia here. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - Checking... Did I look at the wrong tab on my browser? ... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - Sigh... thank you. I'm a moron... Don't ask how, but I got distracted and side-tracked while looking and I went back to the wrong browser tab thinking that a different diff was one of these edits.

Emmreads - See your talk page; I've left you a final warning for engaging in disruptive editing and continuously restoring the article to a version that's not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to marvel at the sheer chutzpah of this edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

NeilN - Such irony :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:13, 4 July 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.

Rigsella is making the same edits to this page as Emmreads. See [255] and [256]. Sock or meatpuppet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex The Whovian

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

---

I have made the following comments on the Wentworth Season 6 episodes talk page.

AlextheWhovian's edits really are restrictive, overzealous and obnoxious, particularly his/her comments "And now we do it properly." This person's behaviour and attitude problem - perhaps somewhere on the autistic spectrum - may seriously undermine the efforts of other editors, driving them away from the site and really is doing more harm than good to the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Whereupon ATW arbitrarily deleted the comment without discussion.

I added the following comment:

AlextheWhovian also believes in unilateral censorship of other people's views. Obviously too thin-skinned to accept criticism, and slightly hypocritical in view of his/her appalling rudeness to other editors.

I have read numerous TV articles on this site, and this user persistently appears as thoroughly rude, snarky and with a genuinely unpleasant sense of ownership. I cannot believe that his/her obnoxious conduct on these pages is allowed to go on without censure. I thought I might bring this to your attention. Whilst my own criticisms are somewhat close to the bone, I feel it is warranted. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you make personal attacks toward AlexTheWhovian by calling his behavior "somewhere on the autistic spectrum"? That's absolutely unacceptable behavior and I completely understand why that comment was removed. You are on the very close edge of a civility boomerang right now and I haven't even gone through your recent contributions yet...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

...And then after the inappropriate comment was removed (and rightfully so), you then go and add it back..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly unacceptable and you absolutely know better than that... a WP:BOOMERANG it is; you're welcome back to the project in 24 hours and with the condition that you engage in civil discussions, treat others with respect and in the manner that you wish to be treated, and that you refrain from making personal attacks toward others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am confused. It seems AlexTheWhovian made very appropriate edits several days ago. The one that you mention where the edit summary says "And now we do it properly" was to correct the source information to episode four, when the previous version had incorrectly used a source for episode 3 - see this. Then, the user made appropriate edits removing "dramatic" language - like "jaw-dropping", "stunned", and "however, peace is only fleeting behind the walls of Wentworth". See this.

The comments that you added to Talk:Wentworth (season 6) seem inappropriate and out of left field. There was no edit warring and unless you are now using an IP address for an edit made by a formal user account, I don't see where/how you were involved in these edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In the immediate case, I see nothing wrong with Alex's edits. They are cutting out extraneous plot material or fixing links. I do know Alex is a stickler to the MOS:TV but rarely is disruptive. Edit summaries seem perfectly fine, a tad bit of snark but nowhere close to a personal attack or the like. --Masem (t) 17:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

+1 - I'm not seeing anything problematic here either, Sure the edit summaries are a tad snarky but certainly not PA-material and certainly doesn't require an ANI thread, I would recommend this gets closed before the IP finds themselves blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Too late. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:31, 4 July 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.

Tendentious editing by 101.178.163.208

101.178.163.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) While this IP usually makes good edits, the anon is often unwilling to discuss and reverts first without starting a discussion. A number of edit warring notices have been posted on their talk page. IP has been blocked four times in the last 13 months.

• Edit warring notices
  • 1 2018-05-29, 11:40 (UTC) TU-nor Revert war
  • 2 2018-06-18, 07:15 (UTC) TU-nor Again: Self destruction?
  • 3 2018-06-21, 08:28 (UTC) Jim1138 Edit warring notice: Red Sea
  • 4 2018-05-28, 05:32 (UTC) Meters Warning: Edit warring on Megan.
  • 5 2018-05-03, 02:16 (UTC) Zchrykng Warning: Edit warring on Louvre Abu Dhabi
  • 6 2018-05-03T02:32 (UTC) Zchrykng Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion

• Bordello of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 3 2018-07-02, 01:30 (UTC) rv of Abelmoschus Esculentus Discussion not necessary on this one. Anyway reduces the number of words in Plot.
  • 2 2018-07-01, 03:29 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 what is so disruptive??? If any thing it reduces the number of words!!
  • 1 2018-07-01, 03:27 (UTC) original edit, no ES

• Red Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - IP has added content regarding Moses "parting the Red Sea" with poor sources
  • 5 2018-07-01, 02:53 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 New source
    • Talk:Red Sea 2018-06-28, 08:19 (UTC) Talk:Red Sea discussion started
  • 4 2018-06-28, 07:40 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 That is why i said 'apparently'.. means its not certain.
  • 3 2018-06-26, 07:53 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 New reference and change wording.
  • 2 2018-06-18, 06:16 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 No ES
  • 1 2018-06-18, 06:12 (UTC) original edits, no ES

• Unsourced content
  • Sarawak Malay 2018-06-28, 09:17 (UTC)
  • Prince Alfred College 2018-07-02, 03:10 (UTC) added Lyell McEwin as alumni, but only scholarship mentioned in article.
    

Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Also, please note the relatively large number of the anon's edits flagged with (tag: undo) Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was curious about the Bordello of Blood edits because that's something I recently edited. There's obvious edit warring going on there, but it seems to be over something really trivial. You could report to WP:ANEW if there's a 3RR violation, but I'd personally just let it go. Didn't look at the other stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ZurgyStardust

ZurgyStardust (talk · contribs) is in violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. They were warned here and have since made several reverts against consensus.[257][258][259][260] They blanked all warnings and told Prefall to Stop removing important information from wiki pages. and then blanked an additional warning. Now there are more reverts with antagonizing edit summaries: "You self-aggrandizing man-children had a discussion nobody really knew about and agreed with yourselves. That's not a consensus. I'll continue to revert your pointless removal of information on the basis that it's just that: pointless."LM2000 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You're offended that I'm calling you out on your BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZurgyStardust (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. I reported him to WP:AIV at the same time you were posting this. Not sure what protocol to follow. Prefall 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• It has has begun, my children! EEng 06:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to blocks being handed down for these fanboys. --Tarage (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note

I don't oppose the block here--it's warranted on the basis of the incivil edit summary, this being a GS topic area now. But there's a real problem emerging here that needs to be addressed before it expands further and takes on a life of its own. Several editors who filed enforcement requests on this matter were edit warring with Zurgy, and assert as justification for these edits that Zurgy was editing "against consensus"; well I've looked at the talk page of every one of the articles where the edit wars took place, and not one of them has had a consensus discussion regarding the edits in question or the categories of content that Zurgy's opposition wish to exclude. It's pretty clear that the "consensus" these parties are talking about is the discussion that just took place at WikiProject Professional Wrestling.

It may be that these editors are not aware about community consensus regarding discussions that take place at WikiProjects, as codified at WP:Advice pages: any generalized content standards which are adopted at Wikiprojects cannot be utilized as pre-existing "consensus" when those issues arise on individual articles. This is a longstanding principle of community consensus, and we've even had ArbCom cases on the matter, which have made it clear that it is per se disruptive for a group of editors working out of a WikiProject to try to enforce their preferred approach across a span of articles; editors should instead seek to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on individual articles with disputed content, rather than edit warring before this consensus is established--again, any agreed upon default formulated between themselves at a WikiProject does not satisfy consensus for this purpose. And the requirement for discussion is only made more vital by the new application of GS to this topic area, not less.

Lest anyone mistake my comments as support for the "fanboys" against the "regulars", let me make clear that I am raising these points specifically for the benefit of the regular editors engaged here, because they are clearly working in good-faith to improve these excessively fancrufty articles. As a fellow editor who has worked on cleaning up similar areas, I understand their motivations, but they are going about it in a way where some of them may end up getting blindsided by the very same sanctions some of them just put into effect. Pinging NeilN as the blocking admin; I doubt he will want to unblock (he let the party off light as it is) but he may wish to be aware of this discussion if he is not already. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise. I blocked when processing an WP:AIV report, and was unaware of this discussion. A note about WikiProject consensus: If a well-publicized RFC is held on a WikiProject talk page (a Village Pump may be better) and comes to a consensus about article content, we can make that part of the editing restrictions existing for this area. This has not happened yet in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

With no respect to the pearl clutches, this is the same bullshit and arguments that we had back in the great MMA wars (see WP:GS/MMA). The community comes to a consensus about what we're willing to tolerate in coverage, external "communities" refuse to accept the consensus and work within the framework established, a General Sanctions (or Discretionary Sanctions) regieme is authorized, and once the club starts swinging and "fans" start getting clubbed on the head after being warned. Same bullshit, just a different topic area. Want to know how the MMA wars ended? By the "communities" advocating unsustainable positions going off and building their own wiki that included all the things they wanted. MMA articles improved because they were upheld to standards. Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, this "community" will do the same thing. Blackmane (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have no particular wish to shield WP:NOTHERE contributors, but the "pearls" here are our vital processes, our general rules concerning consensus and conduct. We don't get to set them aside when they slow our roll to go on a fanboy clubbing spree. NeilN has already detailed above how one goes about codifying a new default content exclusion standard (a broadly promoted RfC, ideally at VPP, to which I will add that a WP:PROPOSAL discussion would be even more ironclad and give even fuller support to the clean-up brigades going to work in this area); alternatively editors can seek a simple WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on affected articles. But general sanctions ≠ we just side with the person who is better known to us, and against the "outsider". General sanctions means that anybody who is editing in a disruptive manner in the covered topic area can be summarily sanctioned, and it is therefore important that the editors working on clean-up of the pro wrestling articles have a very keen understanding of what constitutes legitimate consensus and what does not, because they could otherwise find themselves unintentionally in the path of the backswing of that club you mentioned, because they are technically edit warring, however good faith their intentions.

And our standards for consensus in this area are more than some sort of arbitrary, bureaucratic rulecruft. Well before we had the "MMA wars" we had the "Infobox wars" and other similar episodes of massive disruption resulting from groups aggregating at wikiprojects and developing their own idiosyncratic sets of "guidelines" outside of the normal community consensus process, which guidelines they then tried to enforce upon any article that they felt was within their self-defined purview. The ADVICEPAGES standard was developed by the community (and further strengthened by ArbCom) to combat this kind of walled garden mentality and the anti-collaborative, disruptive behaviours it tends to engender. Disruption by groups of editors on this project is not always a consequence of "outside communities"; we've routinely proven that we can homebrew situations that threaten the stability of our content and community. So you can bet that the admin corps (and the community broadly) are going to enforce those rules too. So before the Great Pro Wrestling FanCruft Purge of 2018 gets under way, the editors looking to make massive overhauls to the articles in question need to hold some centralized community discussions in order to establish something that works like legitimate community consensus for those purposes. Otherwise the club is likely to land on quite a few unsuspecting editors, most of whom were just trying to improve some articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow: is Wikipedia:Walled garden the page you were seeking? DMacks (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it. EEng 03:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That'll do quite perfectly, thanks DMacks! (And EEng, even if you got beat to the punch). I'm kind of surprised that we don't have an article on the social phenomena though; we do have Walled garden (technology), which describes platforms which were designed for or enable insular communities, but we don't have an article about the topic as a concept of social and psychological import--which surprised me, given how much cultural currency the term has right now. Perhaps something to put on my own work list. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: and others, I've notified the WikiProject of this—see WT:PW#Procedural note. Can someone review my proposal draft there and let me know any changes that need to be made? I've never created an RfC or policy proposal and want to make sure everything is in orderly fashion before submitting. Thanks. Prefall 20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Prefall: First off, thanks for being proactive and taking this not-inconsiderable task on yourself. For a first outing, I think you've done very well with your proposal. In particular, I feel you really hit the sweet spot in terms of neutrality; you represented the interests/concerns of the different perspectives quite well, without implying undue validity or giving particular emphasis to either "side". My only recommendations are mostly concerned with organization. As a neophyte to WP:PW's recommended guidelines, I am having a hard time conceptualizing some of the nuances of the proposed change. I'd like to recommend three ways that you may be able to make these matters more clear to the RfC respondents who aren't very familiar with pro wrestling articles:

1) Consider adding some diffs to differing versions of an article (before and after the change) and/or mock-ups in the proposal itself; they may help to distinguish the new standard from older approaches, and allow respondents to better visualize what is being discussed.

2) At the same time, be sure to frame the wording of the proposal itself in terms of what standards you want to apply now; be explicit about what content you want to exclude (and/or greenlight) from pro-wrestler articles, as a matter of default. This means you don't need to spend too much time describing the older standard and contrasting the two approaches. So long as you adequately describe what elements are and are not to be avoided under the new approach (and frame that description neutrally such that you are not suggesting one as the preferable choice) then that proposal can be !voted up or down on its own merits, without excessive discussion about what is being "lost" from the old approach. In the proposal that is: it's to be expected that people will discuss the old standard at length as the discussion progresses, of course. I would certainly keep the opening part about the "In wrestling" section having been around for a decade; that's a very civil and appropriate nod to why this change may be controversial to some, and frames the discussion such that people may be just a tiny bit more likely to be patient in how the new standard is resolved. After-all, most editors understand the "longterm stable approach" argument as it applies to Wikipedia, and also the general human psychology of getting comfortable with the traditional way of doing things and this may underscore to them why some people may need to be won over to the new standard.

3) As much as possible, break the proposal into bite-sized statements (or even better, include a bulletted list, or lists) to describe what the new default standard will prohibit or include. This may necessitate further explanation of the two varying perspectives on particulars, but that's fine, if necessary; nobody expects a proposal of this scope to be super, super brief (though of course, keeping it somewhat tight is a benefit). If possible frame the ultimate question being put forth to editors as one inquiry, which can be !supported or !opposed in its entirety. This is not always vital in RfCs but it is very helpful in a VillagePump proposal, because you will probably get a massive number of responses and if the closer has to figure out how reconcile consensus from 95 !votes that read like "Option A for question #1, Option C for question #2, Neutral on question #3..." then there's a good chance you end up with no consensus. However, as you work on the proposal you may find that it really is expressed best as multiple inquiries. If that's the case, I advise that you try to make the questions asked as distinct as possible and structure the layout of the response fields such that each inquiry has its own "Survey" and "Extended comments" subsection, so the answers to the questions do not get entangled and conflated.

I hope some of that is useful, and that it doesn't just muddy the waters further on what is expected. It can't hurt to sandbox multiple drafts and solicit further advice from those with experience with RfC. I know there is a bit of a rush to get this matter settled so everyone is clear about what is an is not required and therefore forestall further disruption in this area, but your consensus will be much more clear (and the mandate for the clean-up crews that much stronger) if you take the time to polish the proposal over multiple drafts. Please feel free to ping me to any space if you feel I can be of further assistance, and best of luck! Snow ^{let's rap} 22:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock for North Carolina LTA

For four years someone from North Carolina has been genre-warring in music articles, and adding lots of unreferenced, unsupportable "influences".[261] I have been documenting the history of this long-term disruption at User:Binksternet/Goldsboro. The person was using the range 2606:A000:8C06:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 for the past 20 months, but now they have shifted to the range 2600:1004:B039:E861:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock on the latter?

Examples of past disruption include adding unreferenced influences[262][263][264] and genre warring.[265][266][267] The genre warring was the earliest stuff, the unsupported "influences" is the more recent stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the person returned to the longstanding range 2606:A000:8C06:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 with this edit today, adding unreferenced "influences". Please set a rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have anon-blocked 2600:1004:B039::/48 for six months...it is shared and not exclusive but 2600:1004:B039:8F65:6DF8:E419:EAF8:233F is confirmed to be the same editor but outside of your /64 range listed. I have also hardblocked 2606:A000:8C06:AA00::/64 which is exclusively that editor and they appear to have been there since Nov. 2016.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Feud between overbearing editors

I made an request for this an few days ago and got told to handle this on my own. So here's the details, on the page Cartoon Network, on the infobox, I added an past slogan list. Bankster reverts it saying it makes the infobox unclean and etc. I don't agree with him though, he reverts again, so I give up and move the Slogan list to it's own little section of the page. Then, I left an message on his talk page, pointing to the Maunal of Style so we can be more civil when this happens, some other salty kid, YborCityJohn starts rudely comparing his warnings to me, and it escaltes from their, I might be leaving out some details so tell me if I did, so I decide to report him to here, I'm told to handle the situation myself. So after, I leave an message on my talk page, so I could prevent stuff like this from happening again. It may seems salty, but I assure you this was done in good faith. Then, on YborCityJohn's talk page, an user, Nil Einne tells him to take care of his use of the word vandalism, YCJ then replays, jumping to the silly conclusion that I was bullying him. I found out about this and tell him to try being civil, then it stopped, UNTIL today when leaves an message on my talk page saying this:Your message is unnecessary. I wasn't being rude to anyone, however you seem to be kind of "offended" because I warned you about your edits on Cartoon Network. Slogan lists don't go on the TV channel infobox; by practise, we only use the current slogan a network is using at the moment.

I guess you're confused, since I've always explained why I'm removing stuff from articles, believe it or not. Replying to your thread...

1. You're been edit warned. (check)

2. You're about to be blocked due to your explicit, uncivil message on your talk page. If I report this to WP:ANI, this sure would lock you from editing. (lol)

3. I don't care if you dislike my attitude. Fact is, you're being a little hypocrite with the message you have on your own TP.

1, I have no idea what he's trying to prove, 2, he's assuming I'm gonna blocked despite that all of my bad actions were mistakes, 3, That's fine, as I don't even care anymore. This has gone way too far, this needs to come to an final end now. I'm considering leaving Wikipedia because of this, even though editing WP is one of my favorite hobbies. Thank you. Bang 🌑 23:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying anyone needs to get blocked, no one needs to get banned in this situation but SOME action needs to be applied. Bang 🌑 23:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Clarkzero, Bankster, and YborCityJohn: I was just looking into this as a result of the message on my talk page. I'm not sure why or how this got so heated. All three of you are viciously attacking each other and issuing warnings to each other, while talk page literally sits empty. Why would administrators waste our time mediating this when you wont even engage in the simple step of civilly talking about your disagreement? I can't even tell who's most at fault here. Clark, if you don't want to come across as rude, don't issue templates, and dial down the cursing. Even if it's normal for you, people usually interpret excessive cursing as incivility. You could have just explained your point on the talk page, and invited Bankster to the talk page. If you can't work out a compromise, request a third opinion, or start an RfC. There's no reason for warnings, or any kind of personal commentary. And it looks like YCJ decided to jump in and throw more fuel on the fire, because he misinterpreted that dispute as being part of one he was involved in, with both users on Adult Swim? I mean he wasn't even involved in that issue on the CN article. Not a single editor's conduct here is even close to being ideal, but I think the solution is for all parties to focus on content on the talk page, or simply drop it and move on. These content disputes themselves are really minor. Swarm ♠ 00:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to what happened after I left my two messages since I felt I'd said all that needed to be said.

(One was a a reminder to take care with the word vandalism to one editor who seemed to accuse another of being a vandal because they were adding back i.e. reverting talk pack messages which another editor was removing from their talk page. As I mentioned while the action was improper, it was unlikely to be vandalism. I also left a message to the editor who had reverted/re-add the removed talk page messages reminding them it was not acceptable because OWNTALK allowed the editor to remove the talk page messages. I noticed belatedly that someone had already told them this at ANI so I wasn't sure it was necessary but I decided it best to do so anyway. My messages were left solely because while I agreed that there was nothing of merit for the ANI complain that I saw, there were these minor behaviourial issues i.e. incorrect accusations of vandalism and incorrect reversal of allowed OWNTALK removals which were against norms and likely to cause problems if they continued.)

While I still haven't looked much at what's going on, I would normally say something like Swarm assuming I saw the same thing. Any editing dispute where there is zero discussion on the article talk page is rarely ready for ANI. Someone needs to take the initiative and start discussion on the talk page. If someone does that and people still refuse to engage after a reasonable time frame then only may it be time to come to ANI although it may still be worth trying some form of dispute resolution that doesn't require the other party on the talk page, e.g. a third opinion. If people do engage but there is no consensus, some form of WP:Dispute resolution may be helpful. If there is poor language and personal attacks this isn't a good thing, but it's not something easily dealt with at ANI especially when the obvious path forward is for everyone to discuss on the article talk page with everyone doing their best to avoid such things. While it's understandable editors are offended if they feel they have been dealt with poorly or unfairly, ultimately sometimes it's best to put it aside as far as possible and focus on resolving the content dispute.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Those in glass houses... --Tarage (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Should pull the blinds when removing their trousers? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve decided to just never talk to these editors again. I think this section should be closed. Clarkzero 🌑 22:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I think we all should just go our own ways. In my defense I want to point out that my anger stems from mistreatment and threats from an anonymous IP user who I mistakenly thought was User:Bankster but it turns out it wasn't (I posted a public apologize to that effect) and this anonymous IP address user was acting like they were a Wikipedia administrator and making threats to ban me and the fact that User:Clarkzero was undoing my edits specifically removing old discussions on MY talk page and then when I restored my cleanup they became upset with my action and filed a complaint against me on the Noticeboard where they were told that YES it is MY prerogative and right as the owner of that talk page to maintain it as I please which obviously they were not happy with. @User:Clarkzero if you stay out of my way I'll stay out of yours and hopefully our paths will NEVER meet again. YborCityJohn (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Persistent competence issues

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

---

• Wisbech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fenlandier (talk · contribs)

I'm not requesting an outright block, but I'd really appreciate someone else taking over on this. The editor doesn't seem to understand guidelines real well, but has a vested interest in Wisbech and related subjects, hence the continuous addition of non notable people, businesses, news stories and organizations. I've returned to clean out the article several times, and issued several suggestions and warnings, to little avail and with no response. Any help will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bob! Sure, I can try and help! Fenlandier, let's take a temporary break with editing this article so that we can help you get started here and familiar with Wikipedia's core policies, guidelines, and etiquette. Have you gone through and completed Wikipedia's new user tutorial? If you're having issues with getting off to a good start and learning all of our different policies and guidelines, worry not! We were all new here at one time, and I remember how many mistakes I made and how long it took me before I became proficient here. Fenlandier, I'd say that this is a good starting point. Can you complete this tutorial completely and let one of us know if you have any questions? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 5 July 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.

Moving articles during AfD?

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

---

A new editor Shaban110 keeps moving an article during AfD which is breaking the link to the AfD on the article page [268] and manually changing the link in the template [269], I asked him to please stop because it was breaking the template link to the AfD [270] and he is continuing to edit the template, this time directly on the article page [271] Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The low-drama way to deal with this is to make redirects from the new AFD redlinks. And to be fair, "Human Rights in Qura'n and" is a clearly erroneous title. I've move-protected it at its current title, in any case. —Cryptic 09:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought about it, but I've never moved an AfD page around before and sometimes with the templates/bots things go wrong that I wasn't expecting, and that I don't even know about, and then like five admins rush in to scold me, so I didn't want to move it on my own without checking first. But if it ever happens again, I will definitely do that.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And, after seeing the prominent link to previously-deleted Islamic Perspective on Human Rights (AfD discussion) on the author's talk page, I've speedied it. —Cryptic 10:29, 5 July 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 former indeffed's newest identities for LTA

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

---

l hope this is the right pIace for me to report a proxy-and-sock abuser.

• There's a proxy ("AS6939 HURRlCANE - Hurricane EIectric, lnc., US") providing different lP ranges: the main is 66.160.0.0/16, the others are 64.71.128.0/18, 72.52.64.0/18 and 74.82.0.0/18.
• ln en.wikipedia some of these ranges and some of their subranges were bIocked a few months ago, whiIe a subrange of the main lP, 66.160.188.0/24, was gIobaIIy bIocked in February; on the bases of simiIar edits and CU checks, users Baka Líte and Myeuurn were bIocked immediateIy after this lP range.
• The admin who bIocked them gIobaIIy didn't know that another checkuser had detected one more sock beIonging to the same user, FuIgencio Kokomeci, as you can read here, that's why this sock wasn't bIocked.
• After a Iong time, he reappeared Iast month, in the same period when aIso other lPs from that proxy reappeared.
• He made this edit just 2 minutes before an lP from the proxy range made this edit: this time there wasn't disruption, but it's cIear it's the same person, this isn't a coincidence.
• And there's an overwheIming evidence this isn't a coinciedence: both edits are identicaI to 2 edits (this and this) made by a "Iong-term muItipIe sockpuppeteer, using numerous lP addresses and accounts", as wrote the admin who bIocked the 193.204.194.0/24 lP range IocaIIy for "Persistent disruptive editing".
• l think this is shouId be enough to prove that this is just the umpteenth sock by the same user hiding behind the other 2 socks and countIess lPs from those ranges, and this shouId aIso be worth enough a check over those 4 proxy ranges to verify whether there're other socks of his, created or editing using such lP ranges.
• l have aIready a IittIe suspect about a recent account, MbretiBasha, since the Iong-term abuser l'm taIking about was known for having aIso a sort of obsession with phonetic and Iinguistic issues, but this is just a IittIe suspect and may be just a coincidence, however a check on those proxies couId prove his invoIvement or not-invoIvement.

l hope l didn't write too much, and l hope this report was convincing enough. Let me know in case you need more information or have any questions, but l think it's far too cIear these users are aII just different identities used by the same person to "disguise" 162.212.130.35 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 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:80.189.37.38

The following discussion is closed. 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 was blocked for 31 hours on 24 June 2018 for disruptive editing. Since the block was removed, the user has made a series of unhelpful edits:

• Adding unsourced content
• Removing content
• Stating that the subject of the article is transgender
• Changing someone's age or birth information without a source
• Other disruptive edits.

I've added comments to the user's talk page to catalog some of the improper edits, see this diff for all the notices regarding improper edits. There were others that were reverted by other editors, such as Aspening and Flyer22 Reborn.

Because nothing was learned by the early block, this person should be blocked again - either for a longer period of time or indefinitely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to add the diffs for all the improper edits, I can do that, but it's essentially every edit in their contributions (except for one helpful punctuation edit).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

For a bigger picture, that editor was apparently using these IPs going back to 2015.

• 80.189.37.38
• 80.189.37.16
• 80.189.37.26
• 80.189.37.36

They have made one edit since getting the ANI notice which is this one. If they make another without responding then they should be blocked for a month for failing to communicate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - I agree with your assessment. I'm keeping eyes on Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 and so far, no edits have been made since just prior to your statement here on July 3. Ball is in this user's court... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah and others, I have not seen any new edits, so maybe the point has been taken about the issue with unhelpful edits.

Perhaps a comment could be added to the user's page to refrain from disruptive types of editing and a suggestion to use the tutorial or tips for writing better articles to get a good foundation for constructive editing? And, then close this out?

I can keep an eye out to see if any disruptive editing returns after that using the Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 link. Would this pick up any new associated IPs?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson - Sounds fine to me :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, I was just going to say, perhaps we should close this out, and thought I'd take one last look at Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 and one of the IPs in that grouping made this edit adding a category that said the person was of Native American ancestry, when there's no evidence on the page for that and the person was born in England. On its own, it's not a huge deal, but it doesn't show an interest in mending their ways either. Now what?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson - Whelp, the user edited the project without responding to this ANI, so I've blocked the range for two weeks for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, Thanks so much. Is this ready to be closed out?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

With the 2015 edits leading to this article history, 5 albert square may want to look at this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter sorry but I know nothing about this IP or the articles that they have edited. The reversion that I made above was simply because an IP editor had removed information from an article and not stated why they were doing it.--5 albert square (talk) 05:19, 4 July 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 Digijio

• Digijio (talk · contribs)

Digijio started editing last month, and was quickly warned about the multiple copyright violations from his initial edits. While there's been some attempts to reword rather than copy, I stopped looking for subsequent copyright violations after finding Kanan Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sangram Chougule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ratan Tata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of the English from this account is very poor [272], the choice of sources is sometimes extremely poor [273][274][275], and the content is often highly promotional [276]. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronz - I took a look through the user's contributions and I agree that there are issues with many of his/her edits - the biggest being the violations of copyright. However, the edits seem to be somewhat typical of a new user whose trying to add content and at too quick of a pace and where they're not stopping to read first before they walk. Have you tried reaching out to the user to welcome him/her to the project and try and offer some tutorials and assistance? You should encourage the user to go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial so that they can have the opportunity to start again and from the right point and give him/her a chance to improve themselves :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I support Oshwah's advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I provided the editor with a detailed welcome, and a notice of this discussion.

No, this is not a typical new editor. It's a typical undeclared paid editor. Look at the large edits, wide range of unrelated topics, and promotional editing. The slow pace and variation in command of English is strange, like someone trying to prove that they can do a job rather than someone learning. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Plausible. Certainly a spammer. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious editing at Biduino

I know I'm going WP:ABF here, but I'm suspicious about the actions of MariamNasr25 (talk · contribs) at this article. They've made around 117 edits to the page, clogging up the history, and it appears that every time it's only adding or removing periods. They've also edited and self-reverted several times here. I left them a message on their talk page which was apparently ignored, so I'm getting the idea this is an attempt to improperly gain extended-confirmed editing status. Home Lander (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure of the normal protocol here, but I've blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. Of course, if they come up with an explanation, they can be unblocked, but it better be a pretty damn good one. ansh666 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Good block - Only an assumption but I assume the editor was trying to become autoconfirmed hence the useless edits?, I can't really see why else they'd make those pointless edits. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely fits the pattern of someone trying to quickly become autoconfirmed. I've seen this pattern from those wanting to establish a sock, either to evade a block or avoid accountability with their main account. Support the block. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors

Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As Thewolfchild brought to my attention yesterday, Since joining last November, they have made ˜5600 edits, but not a single one of them has been to any talk page, (user, WP or article). That is despite the numerous warnings they've received for disruptive editing.

I came across Higher Ground 1 due to their massive copyvio upload of flags and trademarked tribal seals[277] from German webpages that sell them in violation of US copyright laws.[278][279] This is a liability to WP. "Higher Ground 1"'s pattern is to insert blatant inaccuracies into tribal and historical articles, and upload and then insert copyvio and trademark-vio images into these articles.[280] Nothing is sourced. In some of his edits this user has fabricated stories about the people in these photos (the man in the photo, Eric Alvarado, is not Chumash; he is Hopi and the photo lacks proper permissions). This is the third time they've been warned up through a final warning.[281][282][283] User then backs off for a bit, only to return when things have cooled down and repeat the process. Clearly the user understands the rules.

Since the Lenape copyvios were discovered, a few of us have gone through the user's contribs, and looked at their talk, and found the massive amount of damage this user has done to other low-traffic articles through inserting misinformation.[284][285] Whether this damage was done out of ignorance or a POV push does not matter at this point, as their total refusal to engage on talk or work in collaboration makes it clear they are not here to work in the spirit of the 'pedia. Yuchitown and Indigenous girl have also attempted to reach this user, and are working on cleanup, but this user continues to meet every Wikipedian's efforts with silence.

I've been deleting the unfree images on en-wiki, but we need admins on Commons to help with the images there. It's possible this may be the same user as Xasartha. I can add a bunch more diffs, but just look at their talk.

We could wait for them to again edit after the most recent final warning, but looking at the solid wall of warnings and deleted uploads on their talk, the false permissions they've given for copyvios, their deleted contribs, and absolute refusal to engage or collaborate demonstrates a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As I'm doing the cleanup I'd like someone else to push the button. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy... it's getting even more interesting now: Lucky For You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was brought to ANI for the same pattern: Seemingly "do as I wish" account.

Lucky For You was blocked on 14 Nov 2017 by Oshwah for persistent disruptive editing and refusal to engage on talk.

User account Higher Ground 1 was created on November 13, 2017 at 16:00, while the ANI discussion went on without them, and shortly before the Lucky For You account was blocked.

Editor Interaction Tool for the two accounts: heavy, heavy overlap in editing. As account creation was blocked during the block on Lucky, the IP block looks to have kept the sock, Higher Ground, from editing during that time as well.

Quack. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. So many problems. I'd go straight to indef. block given the evidence. They've been warned and actively avoided collaboration or even interaction with other editors. Does anyone have a reason for not going to indef block? Given that the user has obviously used sockpuppets to avoid a block, I'm going to block the account unless someone advises caution. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Higher Ground 1 and will mark the Lucky For You as the puppetmaster and the other two as socks since the pattern seems clear. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue to look for other socks but we can handle those as they come up. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See also User:Chitt66. Blocked for copyright violations in January 2017. Editor Interaction Tool shows strong links to Lucky For You. [286] 86.147.197.65 (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an indef to me. Not competent for a collaborative project, and generally unconstructive. We have better things to do that try to work around a thrasher with an I-can't-hear-you forcefield.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The overlap between Lucky and Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is definitely quacking. I think it's clear that Chitt66 is part of the Lucky sockdrawer. In the last ANI about Lucky, another editor suggested indeffed Emmy Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as the puppetteer for Lucky. I initially ruled that user out as not enough overlap. But there is some overlap between Emmy and Chitt. It's not as solid as the others, but may be something there. I'll take a look through Emmy's socks, but it may have to wait till tomorrow. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We can re-arrange all of the sockdrawer flags once it's sorted, but noting for now that the oldest account so far is Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with first edit: 02:15, February 23, 2011. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the mothballs. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just spamming for my recently-created essay about these sort of accounts at WP:RADAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I'm wondering if there is any way for a bot to find such user talk pages. Another tactic used is to consistently delete their talk page contents when people try to engage with them. Without a little digging and user talk page history, many editors will not see long-term problems posted there. This is a little off topic but another flag for some problem users. --Mark Ironie (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Metcalf89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?
Found this one on some of Chitt's fave pages, including the very first ones edited by Chitt. Hasn't been blocked, but a look at talk also shows repeated warnings (and almost blocked) for repeated additions of unsourced content, followed by total refusal to engage on talk. Here since Nov. 26, 2016, but like the other accounts, not one single edit to any talk page. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Metcalf overlaps even more with indef-blocked user Emmy Expert. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Gave Metcalf89 a chance to respond here or on talk, and was met with the usual wall of silence. Blocked per same pattern. If by some miracle it's a mistake, their talk page is there. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• A note User:Higher Ground 1's block: I set it up with an autoblock for account creation. Talk page editing is still allowed but I don't expect them to use it. Why start now? The autoblock keeps resetting fairly frequently, at least a couple of times a day. I suspect that is because the IP keeps triggering it, trying to create new accounts. The IP appears to be static so the block shouldn't affect any non-sock access to WP. --Mark Ironie (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting block

The following discussion is closed. 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:Fyunck(click) committed edit-warring that an administrator actually confirmed was blockable.[287] On top of this, Fyunck made an egregious assumption of gender[288] (no, I am not male), and has clearly not reformed their character after two previous blocks[289] for the same edit warring and personal attacks seen today. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP, your behavior is markedly worse than Fyunck(click)'s. Coming in, edit warring, and accusing everyone of harassment and blatant misogyny is a good way to get yourself blocked. I suggest you resume participating in talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked for socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If I were to get as worked up for being misgendered as the IP did, I would have left the internet a loooooooooooong time ago... –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:57, 6 July 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.

Lighting Thundercat

When grinding an axe at ANI, one should take care that it not boomerang

This account should be blocked and locked immediately as a sock of Leucosticte/Tisane/Nathan Larson. Not only is the name incredibly similar to the confirmed sock "Lightning Thundercat", it was created the same day as that account, and its interests directly follow those of most of his accounts (Virginian elections and different kinds of government). His typing style in the last edit by him also follows his usual style. It was even brought up here: [290] but somehow they never blocked it. Editorzszs (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That CU report is from ten years ago; do you have any recent evidence? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please look at the original reporter's contributions? They only started editing a few days ago, go to the 10 edits needed to be autoconfirmed by making dummy edits, and now they're moving pages in a WP:NOTHERE way. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's like waving a red cape at a bull. I guess if you have an ax to grind, and jump around waving it at people, the blade can boomerang and hit you in the head.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite the visual. EEng 02:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of sock puppetry and of being a "Satanic spook"

Behold, WikiEditorial101 (talk · contribs) refers to Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) and myself as "Satanic spook[s]" and accuses us of being sock puppets at this diff: [291] over edits at Yahweh. Usually I ignore this sort of stuff, but I figure behavior like this deserves more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Satanic spook" is a good line, but what's at issue here apart from rudeness, and possibly paranoia?PiCo (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, they are edit-warring over the "see also" section of the article, on whether there is a connection between Yahweh and Marduk. Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Katolophyromai and WikiEditorial101 exchanged a few reverts each, during which time I contributed a revert, and requested discussion. Katolophyromai spent a lot of effort attempting to discuss the topic. Typical Wikipedia stuff. What isn't typical: the accusations, particularly in relation to the topic. Anyway, I'm a lot less concerned about the exchange than I am about the quickness to resort to conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations, and it's unlikely to be the last time said user resorts to them, so here's a notification that this happened and may likely happen again. Your friendly neighborhood spook-sock, :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I share your concerns, given the context. You or I may be inclined to let a comment like "satanic" roll off our backs, but there are community members who would regard it as offensive as applied to them. This editor seems to edit primarily in the field of religious concepts, so they need to be able co communicate during disputes in a manner that doesn't (quite literally in this case) imply that others are in league with the devil. Those kinds of comments, combined with focus on a topic matter like this, are suggestive of a WP:NOTHERE editor who is more concerned with putting forward the "one truth" as they see it than with engaging with the collaborative work that takes place here. If they want to avoid being perceived as such they need to (wait for it...) exorcise their participation here of any such comments. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And I tend to not be much of jokester on-project, and don't wish to further distract from Bloodofox's legitimate appeal here...but if I don't get a barnstar of good humour or some form of wikilove for that brilliant and initially unintended double entendre, I'm going to have to conclude that you people are impossible to satisfy. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 done Congratulations Edaham (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What level of Hell does a Satanic spook live on? Do I have to refer to my old D&D Monster Manual?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Director Infernal Intelligence, perhaps  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

this is what happens when you will use subject headings like "Yahweh, Marduk, and human sacrifice" you know! Curdle (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're on Wikipedia, you never need one of those, just take a look at List of Dungeons and Dragons creatures (A) (yes, as in A-Z, exclusive of the hundreds of other independent articles about particular D&D creatures), which comes complete with totally-not-copyvio descriptions and totally-not-violating-every-policy-in-the-book external links to images... Seriously though, this must be the single worst collection of organized and expansive WP:WWIN content on the encyclopedia. I wonder if we can convince those much-more-industrious-than-me editors currently beginning to attend to the pro wrestling content on to this mess next... Snow ^{let's rap} 23:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: hahahah exorcise - Anyway "satanic spooks" I can't think what could have possessed the editor to come up with that term in the first place. Badum tsss Edaham (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Templated warning issued for personal attacks, but we can consider blocking if personal attacks continue past this point. Please re-report if necessary! Swarm ♠ 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slow edit war and SPA by Wkretz86

• Wkretz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wkretz86 appears to have some grudge with the Anti-Defamation League. They have repeatedly removed a specific passage in the article for hate groups, with edit summaries claiming that the Anti-Defamation League is racist. See [292] , [293], [294] and past edits on hate groups [295] [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302]. Also these two edits: [303] and [304]

Doug Weller warned the user not to slow edit war after their block from NeilN for edit warring on hate groups expired. Today they continued that same edit war. Requesting block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Their response to my warning on their talk page was posted this morning. It included " The ADL are themselves a foreign hate group". I find that hard to interpret as anything but an anti-Semitic comment and have blocked them indefinitely. I have no objection to anyone rescinding or changing the block if an adequate explanation is forthcoming. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Socking of Simon 1996

User:Simon 1996 is abusing multiple accounts, see User:Alex Shih's CU status and also meta's CU results. --B dash (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

B dash, stop posting everywhere about this. There is a reason why I did not block the main account here on enwp; they are actively evading their block on Chinese Wikipedia, which is why both accounts needed to be blocked over there. Over here, their main account is not under any sanctions, but the second account was editing concurrently with the first account as essentially undisclosed alternate account, which could be turned legitimate if they disclose them properly (instead of continuing to deny any connection) as according to WP:VALIDALT. There is no need to block their main account here on English Wikipedia at this moment, as every project across Wikimedia is different. Alex Shih (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lole484

As you can see at User talk:Lole484, this editor has been warned ten times over the last couple of months by me for persisting creating articles with no clear sources, and has been contacted by several other editors over a period of time for the same issue. They were blocked temporarily ni 2017 by Canterbury Tail, but I'm unsure what the exact reason for that block was. They have been editing for two years but have never responded to any messages left for them and have continued to edit in a problematic manner. Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them as they were gone no through articles and deleting them all one section at a time without explanation and including references. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This user ought to read WP:ENGAGE in order to avoid a lengthier block, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know what the last block was for, Canterbury Tail. Lole484, I can see you've been continuing editing since this began - please engage in this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Very similar to another editor of late (you seem to attract them @Boleyn:) ). After reviewing their edits I've blocked the user to force communication. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Time to unban Reguyla/kumioko

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

---

Its time to unban Kumioko and stop fighting and stoo turning a good editor into an enemy. Kumy did a lot of good imptovements before their ban and the ban has been nothing but an escalation of back and forth retaliation. Its time to get a good editor back! 70.88.114.187 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not when he's just bypassed his ban, with an IP account. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He's globally locked banned by the WMF. This is a non-starter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For reference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 9 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth

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

---

The article Serious Truth and the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth could probably use the attention of administrator(s). There is disruptive editing with possible BLP violations at the article and the AFD by IPs and new users (single-purpose accounts). There is a request for page protection that's been awaiting admin action for a bit and there's also an SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chg1990. Thanks in advance, Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Article semied. More experienced editors participating in the AFD would be welcomed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Wow! That AfD is getting seriously out of control. I think it is clear that the main troublemaker there is also the subject of the article. He is making wild accusations about other people who I have never heard of but who presumably have reputations to defend. I think the time has come to block the author and all his socks, delete and salt the article and to redact any portions of the AfD which make accusations against people who, for all we know, have absolutely nothing to do with any of this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some words at the bottom of the AfD, which is basically a manifesto of things I will block for if people continue doing them. I think Chg1990 has now said his departing piece and will hopefully not be disrupting the AfD any more, but if he does, I think he has had fair warning that a block is imminent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 6 July 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.

Clarification needed

This has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but I don't know how active that talk page is. Two non-free images I recently used have been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. He's doing a lot of that today, not just mine, so this must be his area of concentration, at least for today.

I, for one, am not overjoyed by the method of deleting without talk page discussion explanation, but whatever . I need explicit information, not just linking of the policy. One was the album cover art used in the infobox at Emma Veary. The other was a newspaper clilpping used at Charles K.L. Davis. Can you give me a detailed explanation on what governs this?

— Maile (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aye. A non-free image should be increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject of that article. A non-free album cover is absolutely fine in an article about that album, but is spurious in an article about the artist - a cover tells us nothing about that person (there have been a very few exceptions). In the other article, we already have a non-free image of that person, the clipping adds nothing else to that and is thus excessive. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly

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

---

Good evening, I am requesting the attention of an Administrator, as I am repeatedly incurring issues with Marchjuly, as they have consistently followed me around Wikipedia as I edit and create, citing all manner of virtually irrelevant standards and protocols, and I have tried mitigating their concerns, however they just seem to raise more and more, and such is why I've been forced to semi-retire, as I can't take the mental strain and anguish that has stemmed from the acrimonious debates he has caused. Prime examples include Talk:Vancouver Police Department, Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways, as well as a litany of deletion requests he's filed against me in the Wikimedia Commons, ignoring rules as he went. I have tried to explain things to him, and sadly much of that was lost when I purged my talk page prior to my short-lived retirement, which ended when I decided that I still wanted to be a part of Wikipedia, and thus transitioned to a semi-retirement, as explained above. I truly need him dealt with, as I have worked my fingers to the bone in attempts to satisfy him, however he has been nothing but uncooperative, and has made no efforts to help the community in his actions. He has only torn it down, created hostilities, and made my life here hell. Please address this ASAP!

Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please cite specific diffs, showing edits where Marchjuly has violated specific policies. Vague accusations such as this can and have been taken as personal attacks, and the result if you fail to do so could be sanctions against you, Fhsig13. The fact that MJ is only one of multiple editors that have reverted you on the articles you mentioned does not speak well for your filing here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given specifics above that show that he is guilty of Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and I will ask that you withdraw you involvement here, as you are involved in these incidents, and your ruling on the matter would therefore constitute a conflict-of-interest. Fhsig13 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

One problem everyone who has dealt with you on Wikipedia has had, Fhsig13 is your tendency to engage in WP:IDHT behavior. You'll likely see a flying aboriginal weapon if you do that here. You are REQUIRED to post WP:DIFFs to back your claim of harrassment, or bullying, or whatever it is you are claiming. Also, by coming here, your behavior is open to scrutiny too. Further, content disputes are not settled here, so the fact that I am editing on one of the two articles you've mentioned is irrelevant. I'm here, whether it suits you or not. You've made an unsubstantiated claim about another editor's behavior. How does the fact that we've edited on the same article effect that? John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment]. I took a look at the Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways and if I understand correctly, the signs cannot be used because they do not meet the criteria for non-free fair-use rationale. You could, though, use {{External media}} or the External links section to provide links to the signs from elsewhere on the web.

Regarding the table of fallen soldiers that you want to add, it is not standard to have such a section in articles about police departments. And, there was a legitimate reason given for removing the list. I don't see what the issue is here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how to repsond other than to ask Fhsig13 to please provide WP:DIFFs in support of the specific claims he's making, particularly the ones about me "ignoring rules" and about me Wikibullying. Also, while WP:BLANKING his user talk page is permitted, whatever inappropriate things I am supposed to have posted there can be found in the page's history. I am more than happy to try and explain/clarify them if specific examples can be cited. Same goes for any comments I might've made on any article talk pages or even Commons. Finally, since Fhsig13 has started this discussion here, he should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG, WP:HARASS#NOT and WP:CRYBULLYING. Anyway, that's all I have to say on this unless there are questions about specific edits or specific behavior which need to be answered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fhsig13, just in case you don't understand what a "diff" is, here is the diff of the personal attack you just made on Marchjuly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fhsig13, did you really just come here to ANI to complain about another editor's conduct while almost simultaneously calling the other editor an "asswipe"? Do you have any idea how bad that makes you look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: I strongly suggest that you back up your claims with WP:DIFFs as several others have noted and retract the personal attack linked above. While the general requirement or civility here may be loosely enforced here, calling someone an "asswipe" as you did is, in my experience and opinion more than sufficient for you to be blocked from editing for a time. If you continue to attack editors and make combative statements like " If you keep following me around wikipedia, critcizing all I do, when you aren't an admin, I will ensure you get what is coming to you. Last warning, Sir. Your move." I anticipate the "semi-retirement" you mentioned will become both permanent and enforced.

Please, in a concise and at least minimally polite manner, state your complaint and provide diffs to support each accusation. If you are unable to do that then it would be best if you withdraw this request. Regardless of what you choose to do please stop with the insults, name calling and unsustainable threats. No one is moved or amused by such behavior and it only serves to weaken your position. Jbh ^Talk 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, you've some experience with this editor. Any comments? I also note that this use of personal attacks has a long history, see the attempt at an ArbCom case[305] and their comment at the bottom (under our vote)".I urge you to please reconsider your verdict on hearing the matter, as these two despicable gentlemen insist on having everything THEIR petty way,". Frankly I have little hope that this editor will or can reform and am considering an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking indefinitely. Wikipedia is not therapy; nor should this longstanding problematic editing behaviour in addition to unsubstantiated attacks remained unaddressed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:53, 6 July 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.

• Post closing comment Apologies, I am a bit late to this discussion. This is a newish user that I spent some time trying to help grasp the way we do tings here. Unfortunately I think I failed. Their behavior in this situation and refusal to engage in the discussion they opened appears to be part of a pattern of problematic editing. Some of that can be chalked up to the sort of stuff we see in newbies. And some might well be behavioral issues that signal deeper problems such as the already mentioned IDONTHEARYOU behavior and a general inability to function in a collaborative project. Given that I specifically warned them about the perils of the drama boards and they seem to have chosen to ignore that warning I support a BOOMERANG block. This editor needs some time away from here and their behavior has in fact reached the point of being disruptive. I'm not sure if I would have started with an indef but I leave that to the judgement of the blocking admin. Courtesy ping Doug Weller -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Jmills16

Jmills16 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings about adding or changing genres to anime and manga related articles without citing reliable sources, over the two years since they created their account. the most recent instance has been at Date A Live which resulted in this personal attack on my talk page and an attempt to cite a website that not only contains user generated content, but also engages in copyright infringement. The editor was previously blocked twice in 2016 for repeatedly adding unsourced genres and other content, but other than the personal attack on my talk page and the unblock request when they were first blocked, they have not participated in any discussion. This is a clear competence case. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since Jmills16 deleted this section, I have restored it and blocked them for a week. If anyone thinks this was too lenient, feel free to extend it without consulting me. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Based on this recent comment on his talk page, he is simply refusing to get it when it comes to verifiability with reliable sources. And that is ignoring the second personal attack in that comment as well. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thus combining two of my favorite candidates for TNT: Japanese animation and genres. EEng 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor 94.66.144.210

94.66.144.210 has been repeatedly blanking COI and other templates on Alexis Marcou. See Special:Contributions/94.66.144.210/24 for that IP history. I and TheEpTic have reverted this edit a total of 5 times now. They were warned, and yet they continued to blank the pages. They are not responding to any communication. I posted on AIV, but nothing seemed to happen, and the unconstructive edits continued so I'm bringing it here. --Theredproject (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't touched the article for four days and there is no discussion on the talk page over the tags. Why not start one? I'm not surprised your AIV report was thrown out - see WP:DOLT. The tag says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject" - the principal contributor to the article is Mike1582 who hasn't edited in three years. Sounds to me like the tags have expired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Theredproject: I agree with one of you the former the latter. Even an IP can be right most / some of the time  :) I've removed the tags. My semi-literate edit-summary should suffice as to why. Thank goodness no-one ended up at WP:ANEW, that's all I say. That would have been most unexpected. Have a good weekend everybody! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The article was actually started by 311080marc and earlier by them at Draft:ALEXIS MARCOU. Based on other edits like this it seems very likely that Mike1582 was then recruited as an undisclosed paid editor to "fix" the article. It is still riddled with unreliable sources and is highly promotional. I'd hazard a guess that much of the content will fail verification as well. Since when did tags expire? @Serial Number 54129: Please deal with the issues rather than removing the tags. I'm replacing them, and if the IP removes them again will block. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MHS1976 on Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football has created a general template for ~300 CFB team articles inclusive of a "History" section (Ex. Miami Hurricanes football#History, Akron Zips football#History, etc see List of NCAA Division I FBS football programs) formatted with multiple "Coach Name era (19YY–19YY)" subsections, ala:

History

• Early History (19AA-19BB)
• Coach Name era (19CC–19DD)
• Coach Name era (19EE–19FF)
• Coach Name era (19GG–19HH)
• etc

In the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football article, the comprehensive use of coach/"era" subsections is stable to 2014[306] and even earlier when the History section was smaller and contained fewer subsections.

User:MHS1976 is now engaged in WP:DE of the CFB project's "era" naming convention in this article's History section, having repeatedly removed "era" (and occasionally substituting "Tenure" with associated MOS:HEAD issues) from the History section. While the edits and edit summaries change over time, the editor's general view seems to be that use of "era" is inconsistent with shorter tenures -which is inconsistent with the CFB project's view and global usage. [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] PP occurs 18:28, 5 July 2018 19:49, 6 July 2018 20:39, 6 July 2018

Recent pings to User:MHS1976 to engage on the WKU article's Talk page around these non-consensus edits:

20:25, 25 June 2018 19:46, 5 July 2018 20:30, 6 July 2018

User talk:MHS1976: Revision history shows multiple editors and one admin flagging these DE/3R edits, but failing to elicit much response. Recent examples:

May June [319] [320] [321] 22:06, 13 June 2018 prior ANI notice 15 June 2018 Admin warning re edit warring 05:28, 15 June 2018 DE3 warning 19:48, 5 July 2018 DE4 warning 20:34, 6 July 2018

While litigating of the use of "era" is not part of this notice, here is a good-faith offering from an AP story dating before the current WKU's coach first game as coach, "Western Kentucky starts new era with Mike Sanford as coach".AP story on USA Today This aligns with the project's global view that use of "era" is appropriate regardless of the duration of a coach's tenure. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There now seems to be SOCK behavior as well.9AVia9, 67.134.58.222 I can escalate that independently, pending this outcome.UW Dawgs (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

View on Catalonia seem to be spoiling for a fight

Hunig3 (talk · contribs) seems to be an WP:SPA and his recent contribs, however valid some of the points may be, are far from being consensual. Not sure what the best route forward is? I will notify him now that I have opened this discussion. Fob.schools (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• [Non admin comment / question] - Fob.schools, unless I am missing it, I am not seeing that you had any conversation with this user about what you perceive as a problem. See WP:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party. Why not post something with the user and try to resolve the issue that way first? What is the problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I started a conversation at Talk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team and pinged the parties involved. It seems that discussion should take place before getting into an ANI posting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

TBH, it’s not my forte at all. I just noticed a whole bunch of page moves and I can see arguments on both sides. I’m not sure who is in the right, but I think it’s obvious that Hunig3 is an SPA. I was hoping someone with more experience (you!) would know what to do next. You did. Thank you. Fob.schools (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for bringing up the topic. I have already replied to the discussion atTalk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team. I am new at this and did not spent as much time as I needed before editing. Nevertheless, I am honestly surprised that this post is directed to me, when Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs) has reverted all the edits to include the Catalonian propaganda. Of course, that is the current version, and seeing how things work, will always be the published version, since it is not "consensual" to change it. If somebody wants to spread false information, as long as they produce it, you just need to claim that it is controversial, and report anyone who changes it, wishing that at some point, some day, it might become true.Hunig3 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As requested, the conversation was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Discussion about whether Catalonia is a national football team.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama The second of two threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the topic is more suitable for an encyclopedia than beauty pageants or WWE... –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Persistent pleas for help from Wikia user on my talk page on Wikipedia

About a week ago, I was contacted on my talk page by a user seeking help. He was blocked on Wikia for a TOS violation and was trying to find someone who could help. He had tried contacting a few other Wikipedians, one of whom is an admin, but was ignored or quickly shut down by them. I politely told him that I am not involved at Wikia but would look around to see if there was someone I could contact on his behalf. Based on the block details that he gave me, I was not optimistic that I would be able to do much if anything. My conclusion was that his best recourse was to file an appeal through Wikia's block appeal forms and to be patient in waiting for a response; I noted that if I messaged one or more admins or staff members there, it could be taken as meatpuppetry and would not help his appeal. This user is still messaging me trying to push his case. I think I have done as much as I can for him. I reminded him to remain civil and be patient, but his frustration level over the block is leading to him still leaving me more messages. I need another admin to take a look at this. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slambo - It's good that you're at least trying to see what you can do to help this user. The WMF and Wikia, though they are both operated by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley Starling - are completely different from one another. I don't know much nor do I participate in the "Wikia world", but all things from the ground up (and maybe with some similar Terms of Service) are completely different. Wikia is for-profit, the WMF obviously isn't. Unless ther's someone here who happens to know Wikia very well, there isn't anything we can do at all that would be helpful to him except to point him to where he can appeal his grievances with them :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah -- did you mis-type when you said that WMF and Wikia are both operated by Wales and Starling? Our article about Wikia says that Starling left involvement with it a few years ago; and I'm not sure that she still has any role in the WMF at the present time either? I could be wrong...?

Umm... I think I may have? I took a glance through the Wikia article before I came here; it was probably a result of a "mis-read"... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slambo, I agree with what Oshwah said, you have been very patient here. Unfortunately the dispute is about some editor of some other website who was banned for a year on that website for uploading some porn pictures to something or other, and admits that they think the staff of that website do not care about their complaint. (All that from your talk page!) No-one here can help, so the kindest thing would be to ask someone to semi-protect your talkpage for a while if necessary, assuming a rangeblock would be more disruptive than that. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, you could also suggest that they register an account here instead, if they are really sure that they want to edit an encyclopedia instead of a fansite or whatever Wikia is, and that they do not want to upload porn pictures as their main activity. They probably won't be interested in that opportunity -- which might be just as well -- since they seem to be counting every single hour until they can get back to whatever they were doing with "stories" on their site on Wikia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to provide further help to this IP who got blocked for uploading porn to a website that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This person has shown zero interest in contributing to this encyclopedia, and their "persistent pleas" are disruptive. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP for a month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Slambo was very kind and patient, but it is a crazy scenario - particularly as the IP user seems to feel entitled to insist on having someone go out of their way to fix an issue of their own making.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So send them to commons then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

G6

Could someone delete Angela Ponce? Its been G6'd for seven hours. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Could someone patrol the page too? I'm getting a shit ton of errors all the time about invalid CSRF tokens and stuff like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't even see my notifications of load xtools or anything like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

L293D, I don't do page patrol, so I'm not clear where to go to get the [patrol] link. Is it still giving you issues? I re-deleted it and undeleted it; probably that won't help, but I figured I could try. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Its probably due to my poor internet connection. Pinging Boleyn and L3X1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm abotu to head out, but I tried, and the curationt ool is not popping up on her page. It is working for me elsewhere. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say you're lucky, because I can never get the curationt ool to do a goddam thing for me. EEng 14:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The curationt ool® is the new next generation of magickness, which will have features such as allowing editors to irrevocably delete pages they disagree with, and to summon genies four times an hour. Only a select few were selected to test it while in the beta stage, which is probably why it isn't working for you. Let me check the logs……hmm…yes…for some reason your access was revoked last year and its been throwing errors all the while. Let me go down to the basement to see why ti was revoked >49 flights of stairs later, opens door to see robot with evil red eyes foaming at the mouth while making memes on a new TRS80.< ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

True statement of fact: I once spent $1000.00 for an upgraded TRS-80, and those were hard-earned 1979 dollars. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So all tthose photos of you are of your brother? Cousin? Mayor? You don't have red eyes and foam at the mouth. Or do you…^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

9/11 truther

We have a 9/11 truther who has been amply warned about 9/11 sanctions inserting truther spam at September 11 attacks [322] [323] [324] and being silly on my talkpage [325] [326]. Either an indefinite topic ban or blocking would be good. I consider myself involved on this topic. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done User:Itistoday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) blocked indef. Sandstein 21:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing his unblock review now: [327]. Might be time to take away his talk page access. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Itistoday has just refactored MaxSem's declined unblock comment, see Special:Diff/849283754. Might as well revoke talk page access for him. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Already done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hmmm... wondering where we are in the lunar cycle. I just had to indeff a Sovereign Citizen true believer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists are getting elderly and are usually easier to contain, right, Ad Orientem? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • In my limited experience with them, they seem less aggressive in pushing their views on here than some of the adherents of more contemporary conspiracy theories. But I have also seen exceptions as in the case of the Dorothy Kilgallen article. The battle over that article has been an on and off struggle going back years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor 金城湯匙 and possible issue on user page

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

---

So I was thinking of warning 金城湯匙 for what appear to be unconstructive edits, but then I looked at their edits more closely. They appear to be a Chinese editor editing on Japanese related topics, which is fine. However scanning their user page and running it through a translator one line is reading as "World first class 垃圾 inferior ethnic group" which obviously concerns me. Could someone who speaks Mandarin take a look at their user page and talk page and see if it is actually as worrying as the translation software seems to suggest. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 8 July 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.

ImmaImmaTaco having a strop

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

---

Long time since I've had a good strop

-EEng

Please can we yank talkpage access for User:ImmaImmaTaco? I think that this is more than sufficient reason (although I am not the only person he has been abusing). It might also be a good idea to revdel his recent edits and edit summaries. (I did try to raise this on AIV but the bot removed it as he is already blocked.) DanielRigal (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih has revoked talkpage access now. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:21, 8 July 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.

Jesus Christ X

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

---

• Jesus Christ X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just came across this user while browsing recent changes. His contributions so far are on userspace, especially on User:Frederick Stadler, evidently indicating that he is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This has been going on for some time now, so an indefinite block may be in order for this user. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:52, 8 July 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.

Community ban for Dantebish

Ever since February, Dantebish has been socking and adding unreliable sources to back up their falze and dubious claims, as well as promoting non-notable events, most notably an incident known as 'Sexy Vegan' involved with Dr. Phil. Seeing that there is no sign of them stopping anytime soon and that there is an open SPI case, we should set a community ban to discourage the troll. An LTA may also be helpful. Bookwormboy2 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support a ban of this character, as I've been involved with dealing with him, but I must say that it seems a little odd that you, Bookwormboy2, just registered today and one of your first fifteen edits is proposing a site ban. Home Lander (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Bookwormboy2 has been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I figured. @Bbb23: is it possible to disclose whose sock this is, for behaviorial purposes? Home Lander (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I don't mind telling you that I'd have CU blocked as WhenDatHotlineBling. You could probably guess from the history of Talk:Dr. Phil (talk show). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks zzuuzz, noted. Home Lander (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. It is worth pointing out that a CU confirmed sock of WhenDatHotlineBling has done exactly what they were complaining about.[328] Joe-job-tastic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrator's abuse

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

---

I was just blocked indefinitely by user:Yann [329] for asking him politely to please investigate a false accusation and blocking of user:nagualdesign. I did so because user:Yann seems trigger happy with the banning and ultrafast deletion of files created by nagualdesign without even asking a question. He also deleted my original post in nagualdesign's page; in fact he blanked the page so I have no diff to show: [330] This is an extremely irregular action by somebody holding power over valuable editors with long productive histories. This rogue administrator has to explain himself to his peers. Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Rowan, I assume this did not happen on the English Wikipedia. This noticeboard is not the forum to hear concerns of other projects. I'll suggest you take this up at the project where you were blocked. Thanks, Lourdes 00:33, 9 July 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:Winkelvi

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor Winkelvi exhibits a pattern of repeated bullying of the participants in the Wikipedia talk pages. For reference, please see this editor's talk page where multiple users have complained about Winkelvi's behavior. I am not extremely adept at how to handle these issues, but I felt that this needed to be reported in some format. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor Westwind273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be something of an SPA about what African ancestry means recently, particularly regarding Rachel Dolezal and Barack Obama. I don't have the time or energy to determine if their complaint has merit, or if a WP:BOOMERANG is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not have any merit. Looks like a competency issue or at least a IDNHT one on the part of Westwing273.--MONGO (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, if I knew that this was the reaction I would get, I wouldn't have complained in the first place. Sorry I posted anything. I won't come here again. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your complaint is in regards to this discussion. An uninvolved admin can check that out but does not appear anyone is bullying anyone to me. All I see is some fringe stuff being promoted by Westwind273.--MONGO (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have had a few disputes with Winkelvi. But in this case, Winkelvi is entirely correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG beyond shadow of doubt. Westwind begun by posting forum style messages on Talk:Rachel_Dolezal, adopted a combative posture to requests for specific article adjustments and sources and followed it up by spraying the talk page with accusations of PA/bullying off-wiki links to rant threads on quora. The actual content of the article in question (a minor sourcing discrepancy) took five minutes to edit and consisted of modifying a single sentence, all of which could have been done by Westwind in the first place. WP:BOLD! Edaham (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked out Westwind's edit history and he/she hasn't made one edit to an article in a year. Over the years, 80% of the edits have been to article talk pages. Ten-twelve years ago there were some edits to articles And, the contributions definitely seem to be forum type kinds of conversations rather than clear communication of proposed language, backed up by reliable sources. So, people understandably get frustrated and try to get him/her to understand the need for clarity and sources. But I have not seen bullying.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to delete this, but it was reverted. If I had known this would be the reaction, I never would have posted here in the first place. Isn't it rather vindictive for people to keep commenting on this when I clearly stated that I wanted it taken down? I would suggest that you do some self-reflection on the vindictiveness and mean-spiritedness of throwing around the WP:BOOMERANG threat so casually, especially toward someone who made use of this complaint format for the first time. Frankly, I had thought of my participation in only the talk pages as a sign of admirable reticence. But I have learned that you people who are highly proficient in Wikipedia really live in your own world. So we will go our separate ways, but as we do, I would ask you to reflect on the virtue of kindness. It seems to be in short supply around here. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

When you file a report on AN/I, the behavior of all the involved parties is subject to examination. Because your behavior appears to be sub-optimal, the discussion has moved from your initial complaint about Winkelvi, to a discussion about whether you should be sanctioned in some manner. Because of this, you can withdraw your complaint about Winkelvi, but you cannot delete this discussion. (Besides, AN/I discussions are rarely deleted, except for vandalism. Instead they are marked in place as archived ("closed"), and then, eventually, moved to a Archive file.) Please do not attempt to delete this discussion again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I withdraw my complaint? I have come to realize that this is not a kind environment, and I just want out. (And by the way, isn't putting words in italics and bold considered poor etiquette?) Just get me out of here. --Westwind273 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 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.

NguyeQuanTie

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

---

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

This user was blocked 48 hours by GiantSnowman due to adding unsourced content. Since his block is expired, he undid some of GiantSnowman edits and did this [331] on GiantSnowman user page, and tells us he is an admin on his user page [332] but actually he is not an admin. GiantSnowman is taking break now, so I post here Hhkohh (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest block NguyeQuanTie indef, but leave other people comment Hhkohh (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I am for an indef Block, because we should cultivate a Zero tolerance policy against trouble Maker like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 July 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.

Redact request

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

---

I need this diff] and the preceding diffs related to that section redacted. I think this is a WP:BLPVIO. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the announcement at the top of the page and the edit notice in pink telling you "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here"? Natureium (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did not pay attention, sorry! Do I need to follow that process now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you know :) As it hasn't been revdel'd yet, doing that now would probably get it more prompt attention. Natureium (talk) 17:14, 7 July 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.