Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive999

User:Soyanaroboy may be hired to promote Vladimir Plahotniuc

The following discussion is closed. 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 in question: Soyanaroboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article in question: Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Soyanaroboy's primary contribution to Wikipedia is to polish Vladimir Plahotniuc's article. Please refer to their contributions. Namely, he or she did the following edits to hide negative coverage about Plahotniuc:

• 24 Aug 2018 16:20, removed potentially compromising info from Forbes, on the premise that the original document can't be viewed (this is OR; a broken link doesn't make an article necessarily false).
• 5 Sep 2018 16:09, removed valid opinions of Plahotniuc's politicial opponents; they should've been rephrased and shortened if believed to be too off-topic
• 5 Oct 2018 22:40, removed statement without reference; although the statement is easily verifiable, e.g. this article by Adevărul
• 21 Dec 2018 11:59, removed reference from Forbes; cited sources (like this one) do name Plahotniuc as "central figure in the theft", as originally worded.

Please note that in March 2017 it was discovered that there are sockpuppet accounts created with the sole purpose to promote Plahotniuc. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Lack of Professional Courtesy on the part of some Admin's and Editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is nothing actionable here. We would need names and an incident. Please don’t impede the function of this page which is to get administrator help with specific incidents. Please try the help desk or Tearoom instead. Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

---

I wish to voice a concern about a number of Admin’s and Senior editors. This applies to the behavior of more than one and I will not ping as I can’t remember all. There seems to be , for lack of a better phrase’ a Superman complex about many. Instead of providing helpful comments, especially when the new editor is acting in good faith and is not a troll or vandal. Comments like “behaving badly” are made when a senior editor tells some one that a phrase, sentence, paragraph is unacceptable, and the editor so critiqued reasonable asks “why?” in what way. It is impossible to intuit meaning from some ones statement, and telepathy is fantasy. In like manner, when an article is rejected it is not helpful to state merely that it “Doesn’t meet WP standards”. What standards are theytalkingabout. WP has Five Pillars of standards. Which of the Five Pillars apply? And how about a discussion and answering the question. I have asked questions why on at least two occasions and my questions go unanswered? The only reason a question like that goes unanswered is that there was no answer, and the critique or rejection was not justifiableOldperson (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Without any specific examples, there's really nothing we can do in response to this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps admins should be vetted.

-EEng

In regards to "professional courtesy", (almost) all admins and editors are volunteers. They're not being paid and edit Wikipedia in their free time, but by the same token they have no qualifications and no real vetting. It's policy on Wikipedia not to bite the newcomers and I'm sorry that some editors have violated this in your experience. Indeed there is a lot we can do to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone. I'm not sure how exactly we can help you without links to some drafts or other pages where you have unanswered questions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Almost" all? Who's paid, and where do I sign up? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And with all due respect to WP:BITE, there are some newcomers who are actually "newcomers", another group which tries to contribute with grossly sub-standard or POV edits, and others who quickly suck up all the WP:AGF in the room because they think that "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that we don't have any rules or policies, so they don't have to listen when they're told that they're doing things wrong. I'm not excusing discourtesy to actual newbies simply doing their best to improve the encyclopedia, but it does have to be recognized that not all newcomers are created equal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Paid editors are paid. I'm afraid AGF applies whether you like it or not. I know I started with grossly sub-standard edits. And so I'd rather treat every newbie as if they are a good-faith contributor like I was, rather than a WP:NOTHERE case. Even if I'm only right 10% of the time. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, don't most of us start out with sub-standard edits? Might a POV pushing newbie just not know about NPOV? Of course we don't AGF when someone demonstrates clear intent to mess up the encyclopedia by adding vulgarities, porn, threats, or someones' personal info, but substandard or biased edits by a new user just mean that they need guidance.

As for the original complaint, while editor conduct is not actionable if the editors are not identified, I do find it odd that some welcome to wrikipedia templates say "your edits have violated policy" or something like that, without stating what policy was violated, but this is an issue for the templates' talk pages, not ANI. P.S I do agree with your complaint about certain senior editors, but it would be a personal attack for me to name anyone without enough evidence of wrongdoing to request sanctions against them. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard them as admins or senior editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

{ping}Hawkeye7}}Except that they are just that. I got a chuckle out of that image. It evoked a recognition as regards certain tendency's amongst people who are engaged in an actiity for a long time. For instance dealing with vandals and trolls, kind of has a way of stilting one's attitude in a certain direction, and not a nice one. The same with cops. They spend all of their time dealing with criminals and soon in their eye everyone (but they) are criminals, dishonest, breaking a law. There is of course truth in that, everyone, and I mean everyone lies, and those that say they don't are the biggest liars. It is a genetic defense mechanism, without we might not survive, emotionally, financially or even physically. So people who have been at this business, even as volunteers, for a long time, begin to see themselves as above the rabble, even boardidng on omnescience and a superman or woman complex. It happens to the very best. It behooves all of us to keep grounded and assume good faith, save for the real vandals and trolls, which apparently abound. At least answer the question with a decent answer. Shorthand impells one to direct to this or that WP policy, but even those will often require some explanation. I say Tomahto, you say tomaeto. Beauty is in the eye.. and all of that. My main gripe at the moment is that I wrote an article about a notable person. There is plenty of evidence in the article as to how notable. He was the Deputy Governor/Deputy Treasurer of the Virginia Company, his younger brother even has his own Article [[Nicholas Ferrar}} . Yet the article was declined because "This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.", There may be other things wrong with the article, but to decline it because It is Contrary to the Purpose of WP?" IF an article on this man is contrary to the purpose of WP then an article on any person is contrary to the purpose of WP. I have asked {{ping|K.e.coffman)} what is meant and why, how does it differ from others.. Crickets. Discussion of other problems is separate.Article in question Draft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company). I make this complaint with trepidation as I know for a fact and from experience all I am doing is drawing attention to myself and my edits. I think that is how this happened in the first placeOldperson (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your code has some typos in it so you have not pinged Hawkeye7 and K.e.coffman but I have now. The draft seems to use non-neutral language and extensive quotes, both of which are issues that need to be resolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv:Thank you for correcting my mistypes. Mistypes seem to me thing, (I do have a excuse, more than one, but I try hard. Thanks for your clear consise explanations. Those are issues that I can correct.Although I do admit I am at a loss at how to paraphrase the Fortnightly quote without losing it's meaning. But my draft was stopped, No chance for cleaning up or resubmission. Just stopped with a link to ask for advice. No way to fix it and resubmit. The quotes are fixable but K.e.coffman says that"The Topic is Contrary to the Policy of WP" and that is absurd. The topic is a person who is clearly notable. What gives? Does this mean that writing articles about people who are notable is contrary to the purpose of WP, and the stop sign should be removedOldperson (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Oldperson - I have been looking for the comment that "The Topic Is Contrary to the Policy of WP". I have not found it. Please provide me with a link or diff. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The article is here:[[raft:John Ferrar (merchant)}}, Yes when new I asked a lot of questions. And who doesn't still trying to naviate the countless pages of policy, style, instructions not to mention syntax. Much of it hard to retain for this oldperson. Granted my posts may be long, and considered tiresome, but short posts would be snarky and disrespectful and leaving the reader scratching their headOldperson (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alex Mukulu Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Oldperson - When you ask a lot of questions, and sometimes you do, it is not reasonable to expect that they will all be answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Oldperson - When you go on at as much length as you have here, some editors will consider your posts to be tiresome, and will find that the best response is to ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK)

I opened up a move request at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) on December 22 and in my move request I listed a valid rational backed by guidelines, policy and reliable sources why I thought a series of articles should be moved. Leaky caldron was the first to oppose the move and in their original oppose reason they brought my edit history into the move request.[1]. This was taken negitvly by other editors and after another editor supported the move Leaky caldron again brought my edit history into the discussion in relation to the articles that are being proposed for the move while also claiming I created some sort of mess.[2]

After I arrived home and read the comments I honestly was honestly in shock about why my edit history was even being brought up in this. In my reply to the issue at hand I voiced my thoughts about this that I thought by bringing up my edit history in this move request was essentially Leaky caldron saying they don't like the proposal and it implies some sort of ownership.[3] I asked Leaky caldron to keep my edit history out of the discussion and keep it on topic the editor subsequently struck 1 of the 2 comments about my edit history but left the other alone.[4] After Leaky caldron thought I was attacking them about my comment where I said " implies some sort of ownership on your part" I tried to clarify my comment that I wasn't personally attacking Leaky caldron.[5]

Leaky caldron then asked me to examine WP:OWN and WP:OAS and their contributions to Big Brother articles which I did. Honestly I found no ownership issues and I think the editor does great work. However after reading WP:OWN and WP:OAS my mind didn't change I still thought the editor's comments about my edit history was more in line with ownership-like behavior and not stewardship-like behavior. I also didn't appreciate being threatened with either striking out my comments about ownership or being taken to WP:ANI by Leaky caldron.[6] So I replied to Leaky caldron that I wouldn't strike my comments but I was open to discussion on our personal talk pages or they could take the matter to ANI because I feel that I haven't done anything wrong.[7]

Instead Leaky caldron went behind my back without any further discussion and modified my comments by removing mentions of ownership with {{rpa}}.[8] This was the last straw for me and the reason I am bringing the matter here to ANI because I feel this is a personal attack on my charachter here at Wikipedia. Never before have I ever encountered an editor that behaves like this in a discussion and quite frankly I find their behavior inappropriate. To me when un-involved editors see my comments with "(Personal attack removed)" they will get the wrong idea about me and my character. If un-involved editors review my conduct and find I have done something wrong and explain it to me calmly I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and apologizing. However I will not tolerate with being blamed for things, being threatned into doing thing and having my comments modified when there is no reason to do so (or when the correct process was not followed). Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• A repeated reference to ownership (by me) was removed in line with policies WP:OWN and WP:RPA. The complainer has spent a year, apparently, devising a renaming strategy. I registered an oppose which may have upset the complainer in the terms in which it was stated (subsequently amended by me prior to this ANI). Obviously RN is a community decision and it will go whichever way it goes. I am not vested in this set of articles, I correct regular vandalism, that is all, unlike the complainer, who has produced TL;DR to another editor who is opposed to the RN. I believed that that repeated suggestion of ownership against me by Alucard was against policy. They now appear to accept that it was a false assertion. So the removal using (Personal attack removed) seemed the correct approach rather than escalation here. Happy Holiday Season. Leaky Caldron 07:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Uvuvwevwevwe Ossas

Seems like this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, considering today they attacked an innocent IP address in my area over good faith section removals. Affected pages are as follows:

• Alan Walker (music producer) – The IP removed a controversy section that the user added yesterday. The IP was correct in doing so, as controversy sections are generally supposed to be avoided according to the WP:NPOV policy. The user claimed in their revert today that the IP was a vandal for reverting their edit.
• Private military company – The IP removed the "in fiction" section for falling under WP:TRIVIA. "In fiction" is clearly just another fancy way of saying "in popular culture", which is what the guideline talks about. The user claims this is okay, but did not efficiently explain their reasoning.

Also, to counteract an argument they made at AIV against the IP, IP editors are not registered users. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit within policy and guidelines, registered or not. To claim deception here is most likely an act of bad faith and most likely a WP:NOTHERE case. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Having a different interpretation of policies or guidelines" (even if the interpretation is incorrect) is not the same thing as "not being here to write an encyclopedia". Why haven't you discussed this with the user before taking it to ANI? I do see some questionable edits from that account, but nothing that seems particularly egregious, and their talk page is a redlink - nobody has warned them or tried to engage in conversation with them. You haven't even notified them of this thread, as is required. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Some odd behavior from this account (esp. claiming that an IP is actually a logged in user name--not technically possible with the MediaWiki software), but I agree with the above response. Bringing this to ANI without warning or even contacting the user was premature. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know what happened here [9]. It seems a very long time to be a edit conflict unless the editor made the edit then failed to save or something. I noticed that it included a report from the reported IP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Looks like the user saved an older revision of AIV over a newer revision. Similar to what happened to Aero Chord here: [10] 66.87.148.199 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I sort of guessed that but I'm wondering how it happened. Was there an edit conflict a long time back and they didn't notice and when they came back and found out they resolved it by copying over the whole old page? Did they edit the page a long time ago but never saved and when they did they got an edit conflict and did the same, or even got a hidden edit conflict (these happen and sometimes lose stuff but I don't know if I've ever seen them lose so much old stuff, I think it's normally only just very recent edits). Were they viewing and old version e.g. if they'd been following the IP's contribs? Something else? Thinking about it, viewing and old revision may be the most likely since it's perhaps easiest to miss the warning editing an old revisions IMO. The one you linked to seems more understandable, possibly simply either an intentional reversion to an older revision without making it clear, or trying to add back old stuff who's removal they are disputing but in a ham-fisted way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptiveness by 68.193.153.95 / REDXSCORPION (2nd try)

• Archived discussion of the first ANI (17th October)
• And the repeated violation here (2nd Dec) (11 000 chars changed again)
• List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 68.193.153.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• REDXSCORPION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After 1 and 1/2 months this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion; undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification.

I'm asking you to block the IP and account from editing this specific article.

Just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane rants, and their and especially my talk page.

I already posted this here before, but it was just archived without getting any answer..

• I suggest one step you could take to working towards solutions to this problem is making User talk:REDXSCORPION not a red-link. Peter AU --Shirt58 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I put them a notice there now. I thought it's just superfluous, as I already did that for the IP back then, and it's clearly the same person. -- IonPike (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Part 6

I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this again: Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Past discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

This editor was blocked recently for persistent disruptive behavior, as a result of the previous post on this noticeboard regarding it. His very first edit after the block was more of the same - biting a novice editor with an "only warning". While his edit summaries may be slightly less uncivil, there has been scant improvement (e.g. [11]). He's accused me of "stalking" him because he's apparently under the impression that I have an obligation to remove pages from my watchlist if he edits them. Another snarky comment here, after a "citation needed" tag was placed on an edit he made that directly contradicted other information in the article - and he's still flaunting his claimed insider information in an attempt to "pull rank" and/or intimidate others against questioning him. He has accused Typ932, a well-reputed automotive editor, of disruptive editing in response to one of his edits being questioned where he removed a reliable source and inexplicably removed the citation template from another.

Carmaker1 has repeatedly ([12], [13], [14], [15]) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation ([16]) in which that name does not appear, and has accused me of being disruptive for removing it when he can't possibly be unaware that it is blatantly misleading. He did eventually add a supporting citation in the article prose, along with leaving me a nasty response in my attempt to engage on his talk page, but still refuses to resolve the issue and doesn't seem to understand why it's misleading. For someone who is incessantly carrying on in edit summaries about how sloppy and careless and disruptive everyone else on Wikipedia is, he doesn't appear to hold himself to the same standard.

Carmaker1 also continues to defy project consensus in his mission to purge Wikipedia of the model-year automotive nomenclature system he seems to loathe (e.g. [17]).

Carmaker1 is either not here to build an encyclopedia and instead has some sort of axe to grind, or simply does not have the temperament to edit cooperatively and constructively. Being that it's the Christmas season I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's the latter, and perhaps a different subject area to focus on and develop positive editing habits with would be helpful. Since automotive articles seem to bring about a significant emotional reaction, possibly related to his claims of being in the industry, I'd suggest, at minimum, an indefinite topic ban from articles relating to motor vehicles, broadly construed, as well as an indefinite ban from posting a level-4im warning on the talk page of any other editor. --Sable232 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for the Teague-related hoax. To quote myself at his talk page: Obviously anyone can misread a source or misremember where something came from, but when you're warned that you've added a hoax, and yet you edit-war to ensure that it remain, you've gone well beyond WP:AGF. No comment on anything else, because I've not looked into it. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good God, given the history, and now we find out he's been hoaxing, how can this not be an indef? EEng 03:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Fuck a month, this should be indef with a potential ban discussion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't a hoax. It was stubbornness. See below power~enwiki spryde | talk 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Unless Carmaker1 is intentionally adding false information, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Adding poorly-sourced or unsourced names is very frustrating, but it's different than hoaxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, this user was causing the article to include a statement that a source said X, when it obviously didn't say X: that's a hoax, an attempt to deceive readers into believing that a source said something it didn't. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with what Carmaker1 did but he information is right and not a hoax [18]] (blog of a respected car news org), [19]. [[User:sp|spryde] | talk 14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming in here with no background at all, and just looking at this one case, I'd consider calling this a "hoax" is a personal attack with no justification; the user's anger in their unblock request, though misdirected, is a bit understandable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Blah blah blah; none of that says what he's doing is a hoax; unlike many forms of Wikipedia jargon (like WP:CONSENSUS), "hoax" on Wikipedia means exactly what it means in the rest of the world. I'm not defending fraudulent activity, I'm attacking fraudulent attacks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it was a hoax, just incompetence regarding WP:INTEGRITY. Based on their persistent struggle with sourcing and their regular reliance on personal knowledge, I suggest a topic-ban from automobiles for 3-6 months; working on articles where they don't have direct personal knowledge may be the only way for them to appreciate Wikipedia's citation standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree adding in a side of stubbornness. He added the info with the wrong link on December 10th here. Apparently he and Sable932 don't get along and Sable reverted (correctly). Carmaker1 then blindly reverted but also added the correct source later in a different section that does show who designed what here. Carmaker has been here way too much for the attitude but he definitely is not a hoaxer. If he can stop and understand why someone is doing what they are doing, they may have a much longer stay here. That is independent of whatever topic he is on. spryde | talk 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I doubt it was an intentional hoax - I suspect that after the first instance, Carmaker1 was trying to antagonize me personally rather than deliberately keep misleading information in the article. (As an aside, this is what Carmaker1's grudge against me appears to stem from.) Still, it's disruptive editing and damaging to the page's integrity nonetheless, and his excuse of having eventually added a supporting citation elsewhere in the article doesn't hold up when he intentionally left it misleadingly cited in the infobox.

Power~enwiki, I maintain that the topic ban should be indefinite, until Carmaker1 can demonstrate competent editing and an understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and be able to edit cooperatively and civilly and respect consensus. Past sanctions clearly have not worked, and I fear that a topic ban expiring in six months would only result in another discussion here in seven. I feel that several months (at minimum) of genuine improvement should be actively demonstrated before a topic ban should be lifted. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Have to agree with others that there doesn't seem to have been any hoax involved here. This was careless insertion of probably correct info, in a manner that suggested it was supported by an existing ref when it wasn't. Unfortunately it happens way too often on wikipedia, and it's highly problematic but clearly not hoaxing. As others have said, getting the words right do matter since we offend others unnecessarily not to mention confuse both other editors and the original editor when we get them wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies for beleaguering the point, but for the sake of clarity, given that Carmaker1 is, as I've seen other perennially-disruptive editors do, trying to strike a conciliatory tone on his talk page (User talk:Carmaker1#WP:INTEGRITY and User talk:Carmaker1#Claims of Hoaxing) in response to being blocked:

Carmaker1 added information in front of a citation that didn't contain said information. I removed it, stating as much in my edit summary. He undid that removal, so I removed it yet again, clearly stating "there is no mention of Jeff Teague in the cited source". His response was "yes there is", which is a clear falsehood, as already established. While a correct source was eventually added in the prose, no attempt was made to fix the misleading one. Carmaker1's attempt on his talk page to claim that he didn't know this edit was misleading is a blatant lie, so perhaps EEng is right.

Carmaker1 trying to weasel his way out of sanctions (look at his contribution history and the previous AN/I discussions - this behavior goes back years) by feigning civility and claiming confusion now that the jig is up makes it appear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think he is here to build an encyclopedia. He does a hell of a lot of good work but that is marred by the conflicts. I am just not sure if he can get the right temperament to do so. spryde | talk 02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that before but I still wouldn't say there's any sign of hoaxing. First, I'd note that the ref had already been added before the 'yes there is' comment was made [20] [21] so it was true that at the time, there was a source which mentioned Jeff Teague.

Now I think anyone reading the 'yes there is' is going to conclude the 'yes there is' referred to the coachbuilt source especially since Jeff Teague wasn't even mentioned in the prose at the time. But since Carmaker1 had already added the source which did mention Jeff Teague, it's impossible to conclude from the evidence presented there was any deliberate attempt at falsehood and particularly there doesn't seem to have been any hoaxing. It seems easily possible that Carmaker1 was simply very careless and meant the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague. Possibly they confused themselves as to what ref was given in the infobox. Or more likely (based on what they've said on their talk page) were referring to the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague and not the source in the infobox and did so in a very confusing way.

Either way, misleading people into thinking something is in a source when it isn't, is highly problematic in general even when not done deliberately. Although in this case the actual effects are likely to be minimal since realisticly anyone checking to see who was right would check the source themselves and you were never going to change your mind based on Carmaker1 saying it was there when you knew it wasn't. I'd be much more concerned if Carmaker1 added the info and said in an edit summary something like 'As mentioned in cited source'. In that case, the claim may be enough to reassure people who'd AGF and take their statement at face value not realising the problem that had been created. In this case, since the statement was made in response to a dispute, as said there was never a risk of something like that happening.

Maybe more importantly, while it's still highly problematic when not done deliberately, it's reasonable to treat deliberate attempts to mislead different. If someone is deliberate misleading what is in a source, that person should be blocked quickly since to many extents wikipedia relies on people not lying about what's in the sources they provide. When people are people are simply careless, it's worth giving them some chance to learn why it's imperative they are careful what they do so people don't think a source say something it doesn't. (If they don't learn quickly, a block will still be forthcoming.) I haven't looked into the history a great deal, so can't comment on whether Carmaker1 has already well exceeded any allowance for learning not to accidentally mislead.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of Carmaker1's motives, his editing patterns are unproductive - not only this microcosm of it, but the long-standing patterns of angry and uncivil edit summaries, reliance on claims of insider information to justify unsourced or poorly sourced information, and defiance of consensus, all stemming from an apparent crusade to right great wrongs as evidenced in said edit summaries - and there should be a means of requiring him to change that behavior. Considering the two preceding AN/I discussions here, both regarding the same topic area, he still does not appear to fully grasp the concerns raised regarding lack of verifiability, disregard for consensus, original research, and incivility. On that note, see below. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference Carmaker1's most recent tirade on his talk page. He continues to make personal attacks against me with accusations of hounding/stalking, as if he expects that because he decided to make an enemy of me that I have an obligation to clear my watchlist of anything he might edit.

He continues to misrepresent his ongoing battle over automotive model years - as I noted in the previous AN/I discussion, WikiProject Automobiles came to a consensus regarding how these are handled. Carmaker1 doesn't like this consensus so he refuses to acknowledge it. The fact that he cannot respect one of the most basic Wikipedia policies demonstrates his inability or unwillingness to edit productively.

@Carmaker1: - I am not proposing that you be "booted" from editing automotive articles, I am proposing that you learn how to respect consensus, respect other policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, and refrain from attacking other editors on a routine basis. Since previous attempts to prompt such a change in behavior have clearly failed, what other options are there? I propose giving you another opportunity to do that; if you don't believe you can, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you.

As evidenced by the previous AN/I discussions and Carmaker1's contribution history and talk page, I am far from the first editor to be on the receiving end of his uncivil and uncooperative style. For the sake of the project as a whole, I'd like to be one of the last. --Sable232 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal

Carmaker1 shall be banned indefinitely from editing articles related to motor vehicles, broadly construed. The ban may be revisited after no less than nine months of routine and consistent productive, cooperative, and civil editing in another topic area, and clear understanding of and respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have been demonstrated. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sweatisoftheessence making 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.

---

Having been warned yesterday not to make personal attacks against me, Sweatisoftheessence is opting to edit war and make further attacks rather than engage in talk page discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. -- Scott (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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: Mountain157

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

---

Could someone take a look into Mountain157 actions. The user has been repeatedly tried to push his own POV on various pages. For instance, at Human right violation in Balochistan page he deleted credible cited content and tried to push his own POV: [[22]], [[23]], [[24]]

Again at list of notable people from Karachi, he added Ayman Al Zawahiri name. The page is meant for people from Karachi. Ayman is not from Karachi. [[25]]

Again here at al Qaeda in the subcontinent page, he made the following edits. He claims he provided sources for it but he did not do anything like that. [[26]]

If you try to argue with him, he will claim that you are 'state sponsored or something like that'. So could someone please take a look into this case? Anonymous17771 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anonymous17771: As the instructions on this page state you are required to notify Mountain157 by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk page. I have done this for you on this occasion. Nthep (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Accused by admin of being a sockpuppet

Hi everybody. I'm sorry this is so long but I'm about to name four admin here, so I feel I should be detailed. This is kind of a stupid little thing I'm posting about–removing one sentence–but it's a big deal to me and I hope you can understand why I'm posting.

I saw an arbcom case posted recently; a socking allegation was made; I thought it would be better if an uninvolved editor requested the SPI rather than one of the involved editors; so, I posted to SPI.

Bbb23 closed it and in his closing commend said: I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master. diff

I thought this was a derogatory comment/personal attack so I did some research and then I posted to Bbb's talk page with quotes from policies and such and asked for the sentence to be deleted. diff

Bbb's reply: You have all the earmarks of a sock. diff

I asked again. diff

Bbb did not respond.

I read WP:RPA ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.") and WP:CIVIL ("Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.") so I replaced the sentence with the {RPA} tag diff and told Bbb I had done so diff.

Bbb reverted and threatened to block me. diff

I asked again. diff

Then these responses from other admin were posted to Bbb's talk page:

Levivich, why can't you just disclose your alternate accounts rather than indulge in these posturings? - Winged Blades of Godric diff

It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Wikipedia, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies, up tp and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in. There, that's grounds for suspicion, so I see no personal attack. I strongly advise you to stop digging the hole deeper, and please disclose your previous accounts. - Acroterion diff

I posted a response in which I totally lost my cool, for which I'm sorry. diff

The responses: I reviewed and made up my own mind based on your comments, editing history and conduct, prompted by your demands on this talkpage and at SPI. Stop making the hole deeper. - Acroterion diff

Saying that you are more suspicious than the subject of the SPI is not a personal attack. You were just given reasons why there is suspicion, so it is not baseless any more than your accusations in the SPI were baseless. You really should drop it now. - GB fan diff

I posted another response in which I totally lost my cool, which I also regret and apologize for. diff

---

I am not a sockpuppet. I am not a returning editor. I've been reading WP for like 15 years but I've never edited WP under any other account or IP. This is my only account.

In my research I came across this essay which is totally on point (there's one for everything on WP!): Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet

Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2018.

Wikipedia has been around long enough for people to have read it and learned about it, without creating an account, for years, now.[note 1] Its policies, guidelines, and processes are extensively documented on Wikipedia itself...Furthermore, these policies and guidelines are linked to from the {welcome} template that is often the first thing placed on new users' talk pages. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that someone with a modicum of intelligence manages to learn about how Wikipedia works, and what to do, before, or immediately after, creating an account.

It shouldn't be surprising either that someone knows of, for example, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion discussions have never been secret, and they have sometimes been observed by journalists...It is far from impossible for someone to learn of the internal workings of the project before creating an account.[note 2]...Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency.

Also: Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless and Wikipedia:Newcomers aren't all clueless

Contrary to what Acroterion said above, I never made any demands, only requests. I didn't know I was supposed to wait some period of time before participating in an AfD discussion (the newbie docs encourage you to jump right in and participate in discussions). I've only filed the one SPI. I also filed one revdel and posted evidence to an arbcom case recently.

I guess this statistic matters so: my mainspace edits are 55.3%, userspace 16.9% (drafting), article talk 10.4%, WP 7.3%, User talk 5.6%, Wikipedia talk 3.2%. xtools Levivich edits Over 70% of my edits are main and user space and 3.2% is WP talk. I don't know if that's good or not for a newbie but I feel like, hey, I'm really doing mostly articles and only a little of things like AfD.

I think these admin's comments are derogatory statements about me and that they are a personal attack. Sockpuppetry is like a capital offense at WP, it can get you banned, so accusing me of that is accusing me of serious wrongdoing.

I really don't feel like the admin have good basis for their accusations. I can't believe Arcoterion wrote that because I showed "significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies," participated at AfD and posted 1 SPI, that "that's grounds for suspicion."

Competency is required is a policy, and I spent a LOT of time this last month reading all the policies and documents and trying to be careful and do things right. I dipped my toe in AfD. I posted a revdel one time because I thought the closure was a bad one. I posted to arbcom because I really another newbie like me got wrongly banned. I posted to SPI the one time because I thought I was helping. I don't understand what I did wrong?

(This is why I lost my cool in my last two posts on Bbb's talk page. I put a lot of time into reading all the manuals and trying to do things the right way and now I'm being called a sockpuppet–by admin!–for it. Still I shouldn't have responded until I had calmed down a lot.)

It also bothers me that the admin who accuse me of being a sockpuppet aren't opening an SPI on me, so I feel like I can't get out from under this cloud.

If they don't have good basis, then isn't accusing me of sockpuppetry is a personal attack? Because:

• WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
• WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
• WP:Casting aspersions: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

This is particularly scary for me because it's coming from four admin. If it were just some editors saying stuff about me on a talk page, it's like whatever. But one of the admin said it in a closing comment, which is an official admin action. That's high profile and like giving it the Wikipedia Stamp of Official Truth: Levivich is a suspicious sockpuppet!

So I'm asking for the community's input and help. Two questions:

1. How do I prove I'm not a sock puppet without giving up anonymity?

2. Can someone please remove the personal attack from the SPI archive?

Thank you. Levivich (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Levivich account was created on 12 November 2018. Can anyone find an essay explaining that the only new users who complain about a suggestion they are a sock are in fact socks? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• You accuse 5 accounts and 20 IPs of sockpuppetry on flimsy evidence after 6 weeks of editing, and you're upset that someone called you "suspicious"? I think the Germans have a word for this... -- Scott (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was a bit flip. I see now that there's a case for you being an eager new user and in over your head. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you aren't being accused of sockpuppetry. Being "suspicious" (a reasonable observation based on your SPI case) is not a blockable offense. This can all be forgotten if you drop it--indeed, already would have been had you just let Bbb23's comment slide.

In the future, I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved. It doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopedia, it requires knowledge of a large number of bureaucratic processes, and it's just not fun. You can expect to be accused of much worse things than this, on far less evidence. If you can do it well, it's one of the more reliable routes to becoming an admin someday, if that's something that interests you--but you are going to need much thicker skin. -- Scott (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Getting advanced reference formatting right in the second edit to Wikipedia [27] demonstrates prior knowledge of Wikipedia's markup language. Reading "manuals" however carefully doesn't give you the level of expertise demonstrated by that edit (for comparison, this is my attempt at formatting citations after reading the explanatory material given on-wiki). AGFing, this looks like a clean start account or a long term IP contributor if not a sock. — fr ⁺ 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• A very quick look at the IPs that were accused in the SPI shows that they include

• A school in Florida
• A static IP in Kansas
• A mobile IP in South Wales, UK
• A dynamic broadband account in New Zealand
• A mobile phone in the Ukraine
• Another school, this time in California
• A T-Mobile account in Hungary

• I stopped looking at that point. Do you see the problem that Bbb23 had with your SPI now? Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• From my comment at Bbb23's talkpage: "It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Wikipedia, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies, up to and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in." It's not a PA if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, correct or not. You were participating in arbitration proceedings concerning Giant Snowman within weeks of starting out. Everything you've done since then, including this complaint, simply cements the impression that there's something not quite right here. If you're innocent, go edit, quit wasting our time making demands (yes, you've been making demands) and sloppy SPIs that make us wonder what you're up to, and everything will be fine. If you're not, then it's likely that there will eventually be a clear-cut problem that reasserts itself. Right now, the problem is that you're making voluminous accusations in all directions, most of which are the result of a single, rather mild observation by Bbb23. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Levivich: Since your eleventh edit was a >5,000-byte, perfectly referenced, formatted and MOS-compliant chunk of prose of the kind that many seasoned editors would have to subsequently tweak or copyedit for that level of precision, you should look forward to receiving similar responses as you enjoyed from Bbb23. Seasons Greetings to all ANIers, btw. ——SerialNumber54129 13:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• As multiple people have said, there is a suspicion that Levivich is a returning user based on their initial editing. That is all that was said in the SPI, it is not a personal attack to make an observation based on the available evidence. The only thing that needs to happen here is for Levivich to go and edit the encyclopedia. ~ GB fan 13:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to stand up here for the essays Levivich cites about not assuming all newbies are clueless. I recall one new editor who was blocked after wading into an article—or maybe the talk page of an article, it was a while ago—on a matter of international conflict and got summarily blocked for excessive competence. I believe it was a topic on which the editor has expertise, and if I haven't confused two different happy endings, they became an admin a few years later. I started off myself by almost immediately creating an article using MS Word and a copy of the wiki-code and its output for another page, which I used as a template for the formatting stuff including infobox and named refs, and for house conventions like subheadings. It would have looked extremely precocious if Word hadn't included smart quotes. I had no prior knowledge of Wikimedia markup language; in fact the main impetus for my starting editing here was to learn it; but I'm told it's widely used and many people know it from in-house wikis at their workplaces. In any case the edit summary for this edit, cited above as astonishing, reveals that it involved going back to bits of two previous versions; i.e., it's stated to have been done at least in part via cut and paste. (Good edit summary, by the way!) Notoriously naïve though I am, I see no reason to abandon the assumption of good faith here yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can make a valid case that Levivich is a naive editor who learns quickly, who has jumped into the deep end of the pool, not realizing how deep it really is, and who, having made a poorly conceived SPI, is not well placed to offer complaints that they're being unfairly persecuted or to demand satisfaction. Perhaps from this Levivich will have learned that shrill denunciations are a poor response to a passing and reasonable observation by the admin that checked the SPI. Levivich isn't in any form of actual trouble. Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• If you want to explain your situation privately, you can send an email to the functionary mailing list. By the way, if the cops stop you, anyone who's ever seen a YouTube video knows that you answer their questions politely and try not to antagonize them. If a checkuser starts accusing you of being suspicious, I'd just let it go. Why argue about it? If you're not blocked, the checkuser obviously doesn't have enough evidence to do anything about it. This one time, a cop pulled up next to me and said, "Hey!" I look over and see that she's actually quite attractive. I'm still kind of cautious and say, "Yeah?" And she asks me if I want a ride. I think to myself, "I've never seen a YouTube video that says what to do in this situation." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• SPI filing: This is what I saw: User 1 was blocked after a couple of ANI reports six months ago. A couple days later, User 2–an account created a year prior that hadn't edited in a year–begins editing in the same article, making the same changes, as User 1. A few days after that, the User 3 account is created, but stays "dormant" for six months. Then, User 3 starts edting–again in the same article, making the same POV edits–and on its 18th edit filed an arbcom case against an editor who was one of the editors who was reverting User 1 and filed an ANI against User 1. The accused editor accused User 1 and User 3 of being same. I thought it would be better if the SPI was opened by someone uninvolved. I thought I was helping; that's why I filed the SPI. The other usernames and IPs I listed were other apparent SPA accounts who had edited the same article for the same NPOV reason, in between the time periods of User 2 and User 3 above. I thought this timeline was "enough" for someone to check the IPs. I didn't realize that was not enough evidence to start an SPI. I am obviously never going to file another SPI again. I'm not sure why it makes me suspicious that I did that; I really thought (and still think) that I was helping another editor who was "wrongly accused" at ArbCom by an SPA. @Black Kite: No, I don't see the problem with the SPI. Can you explain it to me? (Not a facetious question, I honestly literally don't see why the timeline above is not an indication of sockpuppetry. Nor do I see why my contribs are an indication of sockpuppetry. In one case, multiple accounts are making just a few edits all in the same place. In my case, it's one account, making 1,000 edits in a month in various different places. I am honestly totally befuddled.)

Wikimarkup is an easier form of HTML. I made web pages back in the '90s and early 2000s and that's where I learned HTML. It's not hard to pick up wikimarkup.

MOS cites are "perfect" because they're made by ProveIt or VisualEditor or one of the other tools that makes cites for you. I learned the short footnote citation format from an editor who showed me an example at an article. Generally speaking, due to my RL profession, I've been writing, researching, and citing for my entire adult life. Citations aren't new to me. (MOS citations are, but there's an app for that.)

To sum up above, you're telling me that Wikipedia is a place where, if you read the documents, look at other people's examples, and do a good job, you will be accused of being a sockpuppet?

@Acroterion: please provide a diff where, other than the one SPI filing, I was "making voluminous accusations." Please provide a diff where, before I was falsely accused by 4 admin of being a sockpuppet, I made a "shrill denunciation." You keep accusing me of doing things I haven't done; I think you should provide diffs to back it up.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for point me to the functionaries mailing list. I don't have a private situation to explain to them, though. My situation can be explained publicly: I have read WP for about 15 years but have never edited before. This is my only account.

@Serial Number 54129: How do we change that? I'm trying here. It's why I'm making a big deal out of this.

Can anyone CU my IP address to confirm that I've never made an IP edit before? If I knew what my IP addresses were for the last 15 years, I'd list them so they can be CU'd too.

It's flat out not true that my work on WP looks like that of a seasoned veteran. It's not that good; I think the case is being vastly overstated. Look at my sandboxes (I learned to make multiple sandboxes from another editor's user page) to see what it looks like when I'm drafting and practicing: User:Levivich/sandbox I'm no Hemingway here.

As to the comment that Levivich should just go edit the encyclopedia, yeah, right. I am not going to volunteer my time under a cloud; I'm not going to volunteer my time "under suspicion;" I'm definitely not going to do that when I've done nothing wrong; and absolutely not if the suspicion is based on me doing too good of a job.

All of you folks thinking I'm a sockpuppet, I ask that you take a moment and really consider what if you're wrong, what if I'm telling the truth? Do you really think a newbie is going to keep playing here when everyone is accusing him of wrongdoing because he's supposedly too good at this? Can any of you understand why this is so amazingly upsetting for me?

If this is a place where, in order to continue volunteering here, I either have to (1) intentionally make mistakes so no one thinks I'm a sock, or (2) put up with like a dozen admin publicly accusing me of serious wrongdoing, then .... well... who would want to be part of that? Levivich (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not under a cloud, unless it's one of your own making, since you seem to be determined to answer mild criticism with a barrage of kilobytes of text, demanding justice and rejecting reasonable suggestions that, having proclaimed your innocence to the heavens, you might go back to editing the encyclopedia. For evidence you're demanding of the voluminous filings and denunciations, look at the head of this section, the section immediately above and Bbb23's talkpage. Really, this kind of ANI time-sink is far more concerning than the SPI or Bbb23's comment. The parable of The Mote and the Beam comes to mind: we're not here to win contests of will, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Before I was accused of being a sockpuppet, what was it that I did wrong that constitutes a "beam in my eye"? That's why I'm asking you to post diffs. So far, I'm told that I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet because my citations are well formatted, I participated in AfD in my first week here, and posted one SPI in my second month... Are those really "beams"? If it's something else, please post the diff of what I did wrong. Yes, I'm making a big deal out of it, after the criticism, which I do not see as "mild," but extremely serious, since I'm being accused of a bannable offense, a "capital crime" as it were. Part of my point in bring this up here is to try and convince you that casual accusations of sockpuppetry are not mild–to me, and I think to other new editors, they are very serious, serious enough that I would stop participating over this. I am under a cloud, and it's one that you put over me! Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day you need to understand that you should file SPIs very carefully and don't take trivial remarks too seriously. You are not even blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi88iisc (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you're now going over the top with nonsense about "capital crimes," I'm guessing that acceptance of help is not something you're willing to consider. You are judged here by your conduct, not by what others say about you. Please keep that in mind. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@FR30799386: If you look at the diff of mine that you posted [28] and compare my version [29], you can see the first paragraph is a straight cut-and-paste of a previous version [30] and the rest of the article is a straight cut-and-paste of an earlier version [31], just as someone mentioned above. That wasn't my work at all. Does this change your opinion at all? (Also, looking back at it now, I realize I inadvertently left out a picture when I copied-and-pasted, which I've put back)

@Black Kite: I don't know how you traced those IPs, but I thought tracing IPs was something I was not supposed to do, especially in light of the recent to-do about off-wiki contact. I thought I was supposed to post the IPs and let others check and see if they're open proxies, or geographically similar or whatever.

@Scott Burley: Thank you for the strikeout, it means a lot to me that you keep an open mind. Thank you also for the advice, "I'd recommend not wading into the dispute resolution process for disputes where you aren't involved," which I want you to know is advice I will follow from here on out. I actually thought the opposite, that it's better for an uninvolved editor to file an SPI than an involved one, but obviously I was wrong. I don't think I would ever want to be an admin or anything like that. I do have thick skin, and I wouldn't complain if this was just an editor, or even an admin, making some comment on a talk page somewhere. I also don't mind the other admin who said I'm a sockpuppet who gave me their reasons why. At least if everyone can read their reasoning, they can judge for themselves if the accusation is legitimate, so it lessens any harm to my reputation or my need to "defend" myself. This is different with Bbb. Bbb is a checkuser and an admin, who called me suspicious in performing an "official" duty (closing the SPI). Everyone will assume that Bbb has some technical information about me that suggests I'm a sock. Bbb also has not stated any reasons for their statement (although I think they have to by the policy about admin accountability). You don't have to answer this, but let me ask you something: you said your own first reaction was "flip": is it because on one side you saw Bbb, and on the other side, a nobody (me)? If so, that's what I'm talking about. I can't see letting it slide that a checkuser admin is calling me a sockpuppet and won't say why. That's "yikes" to me; serious enough to make this stink. Bbb could have just said, "This was an inappropriate SPI." or something along those lines, without casting aspersions about me.

I know now that I was wrong to file the SPI, but I still don't know why I was wrong, and I would appreciate somebody filling in the gaps between the SPI I filed and a "good" SPI. (In an alternate reality, Bbb would have just educated me a bit on what was lacking in my SPI instead of calling me suspicious and a sock puppet.) I'm looking at Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Possible signs and it seems like my SPI met the following criteria, which is why I filed it: Precocious edit history, Excessive support for one's cause, Repeating the same disapproved activity, Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Connection to the article (all these are with reference to The Exodus), days on and off (none of the accounts seemed to edit on the same days, it was one after the other in serial), Accounts with occasional usage, Accounts used only briefly (almost all are SPAs, except the alleged master), Lack of establishment into the community (applicable to all account I listed but the master), Single-purpose accounts (almost all the IP/users I listed were SPAs). Under Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Triggers of a sock puppet investigation: Use of a single-purpose account, Engaging in an edit war, Account block (the master account was blocked). I thought this SPI met those criteria, so it should be filed.

Bringing it back to the point: I appreciate everybody's responses and taking the time to talk to me. I just want to remind any closer that the specific thing I am asking for (what makes this ANI post "actionable") is for "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." to be removed from the SPI archive. I'm will answer any questions but otherwise I'll shut up now. Thanks again for the community input, thanks in advance if anyone grants my request, and Merry Christmas to everyone who celebrates it. Levivich (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas to you too, and FYI you can check on IPs by clicking the WHOIS or GEOlocate links on their talkpages. Now sometimes that's not completely accurate, and you've got to check for proxies, but you can often ensure that certain IPs aren't the same person, as it was in this case. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Anonymous17771

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

---

I would like someone to take a look into Anonymous17771 actions. This user has been targeting my edits that I have made with factual cited information. He is claiming that I am pushing POV on pages, but he is the one who is aggressively reverting cited information. I have only added content to Wikipedia but not removed any as he is claiming. When it comes to the "List of people from Karachi" edit that I did it was based on multiple sources such as: [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]]

All the people listed on the List of people from Karachi" are not necessarily originally from Karachi. They are currently residing there but were born elsewhere. So it is not clear why Anonymous17771 has a problem only with this one person that was included with citations.

For the one in which he claimed that I did not give sources for "Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent"; if a terrorist group is based and operating freely in a country with no repercussions, that has to be considered as implicit support by that country. And there are multiple sources that can support the contention that AQIS is operating out of Pakistan. One of them is given below.

Then lastly for the article titled "Frontier Corps" he deleted the sentence I had added and the sources given with no proper reasoning given.

References

For the edits that I make he is going and with a bias editing any information and sources that I give by saying claiming its "POV editing" or "Unconstructive editing". So can someone please take a look into this case?-Mountain157(talk) 4:36 24 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Mountain, thank you for reporting this. The user has been blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Needs help over here.

This page Freak Me (Ciara song) suffered to be bounced between a redirect and mainspace FOUR times just this month between an IP user and User:Hayman30 per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freak_Me_(Ciara_song)&action=history. One of the reasons I hate redirects, they are very easy to manipulate and this happens quickly. I don't have any opinion regarding the notability of the song, but this needs to be solved once and for all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just a basic content dispute. It doesn’t require admin intervention, it just needs someone starting a talk page discussion (and maybe an WP:RFC.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of the sides will create talk pages here, seeing the behavior of the page history so far. That is the problem. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

No one has even tried yet. You’ve got to try first. That’s step one. Nothing else can be done here yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Weird spat at Inti Creates

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

---

There is a weird edit war going on at Inti Creates. I can't really figure out what is going on: is this a real edit dispute, or some kind of trolling or performance art? Can anyone help with this? -- The Anome (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Quick block needed for compromised 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.

---

• Ayteebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Billy_porno

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

---

Billy_porno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account was created earlier today and has been removing the speedy deletion nomination tag from their draft. Having a look at the draft, it is not sth serious, and an admin might need to intervene. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hats off to Mr and Mrs Porno for giving their son such an hilarious name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

More than hats off, presumably. EEng 18:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 of violence

The following discussion is closed. 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 block Special:Contributions/2001:18C0:39E:DA00::/64, please? Diffs: "i add this. If you remove this text again, i kill you for real, NinjaRobotPirate.", "i add this. If you remove this again, i kill you and your friends, NinjaRobotPirate." This editor is obviously very attached to their original research. Please don't make it a 24 hour block; this /64 has been stable for months, and I'm tired of recieving death threats on Wikipedia. It's just impotent internet rage, so no need to contact WP:EMERGENCY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I’m not an admin but I think you should send an e-mail to emergency for any death threat you receive. IWI (chat) 05:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Regardless of whether it's a credible or empty threat, a death threat is a death threat, and you shouldn't just scoff it off as nothing more than a sick joke at your expense. Bringing this to WP:EMERGENCY's attention would at least give you the last laugh in a civil way. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one month. Happy to extend as needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. And, to the editors above, you would probably get along well with my family, who have been urging me for years to take things more seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha; I guess we would. IWI (chat) 12:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Calton

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

---

On Talk:Hepatitis C vaccine, Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a rhetorical question attack by stating "You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?" WP:NPA states to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 108.173.18.28 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A complaint about Ruslik0 by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a personal attack now? Nonsense. Read the context. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC).

The IPs are clearly POV-pushing, and are probably people somehow affiliated with the University of Alberta. My thoughts from the IP's willful misunderstanding of Calton wouldn't have been Is English your first language?, but it's certainly not a comment that Calton should be sanctioned for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In the real world, I'm an ESL instructor in Japan. No, really. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, SOMEBODY'S not happy [36] --Calton | Talk 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked.  Swarm  {talk}  00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 randomly reverting someone else’s 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.

---

User:Dominick333 rapidly reverting the edits by User:Blue Square Thing for some reason. The former is a non-autocomfirmed editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewstang (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Hurtful and uncivil comments by User:Mmcele

The following discussion is closed. 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 logged onto Wikipedia on Christmas day to find a disgruntled new editor directing me to "go die!!!" along with lessor derogatory remarks. Could someone deal with this, to stop these things in their tracks and hopefully give a wake up call, that this is a horribly uncivil thing to state. Ignorance can be a defense, likely the only one, but surely there is a line not to be crossed?

I do not want to interact with this editor (other than giving ANI notice) and possibly be baited into some battle. I think this unprovoked attack is egregious and should not be taken lightly as it has given me a very terrible start of a day. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 72 hours initially, and when editors return from a day or two away, hopefully they can decide whether that's sufficient or they wish to extend the block for a longer period. Nick (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, can you do something about the comments? Striking them would still present them. Otr500 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:ReverendSpecialK

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

---

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

In the past 12 months, ReverendSpecialK edited four pages, with all of their edits being problematic in nature:

• Nazi songs, Persistent restoration of lyrics: [37]; [38]; [39]

• Kholm Pocket, Changing "liberated" into "captured": [40]; [41]; because "Liberation" is subjective and implies a bias.

• Vienna, Removal of the section "Famous Jewish cultural figures from Vienna": [42]; [43]

• Devil's song (since deleted), Restoration of lyrics.

The user has received several warning and a block for edit warring: Talk page permalink. They appear to be WP:NOTHERE and I would appreciate a review of the situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think most of these edits could be considered good faith for a novice editor. Although the edit warring and refusing to learn the rules is an issue if it persists. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let me be more direct then. The editor is repeatedly making pro-Nazi edits in Nazi-related articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• It's kind of astonishing that his edit to an article called "Nazi songs" manages to remove almost uses of the actual word "Nazi". --Calton | Talk 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• AGF and all that, but when any random edit you spot-check over the last couple years can be read as pro-Nazi it's hard to avoid certain conclusions. See this on Panzer Division Kempf (removing an admittedly unsourced claim about said division committing atrocities) and this on Operation Barbarossa (removing sourced claim about Nazi Germany's war aims against the Soviet Union). Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  You are correct, it does look there's some POV pushing here as well. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Calton: he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist", which combined with his removal of Jewish related text is probably just his attempt to remove what he sees as a derogatory term. Anyway, he's not here to improve the encyclopedia and the removal of Jewish related texts show his agenda, so I'm blocking indefinitely. He can appeal and agree to stay away from such topics and I'd probably unblock him. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • he's replacing "Nazi" with "national socialist"
    • Really? No kidding. I totally missed that since I am a bot who only counts words and doesn't understand sarcasm. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Borderline legal threats at Talk:Incel

The following discussion is closed. 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 IPV6 editor is currently claiming at the talk page for Incel that the lede is "defamation." So far quite vague but admin eyes should likely focus on this page for a little bit in case it gets worse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Leo Freeman

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

---

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

• Added "Armenian architecture" to the Islamic architecture page without source. No edit summary/explanation.[44]
• Added "Armenian Renaissance" to the Macedonian art (Byzantine) page without source, explanation or edit summary.[45]
• Tried to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possible Armenian origin of a Byzantine ruling dynasty, through sheer edit-warring.[46]-[47]-[48]
• Added "Armenian" to the Philippicus (general) page without edit summary/sources.[49]
• Completely overhauls the stable revision on the Armenia page, changing the "establishment date" of Armenia from the 6th century BC to 2492 BC without edit summary/explanation.[50] When Calthinus restored the original version, "Leo Freeman" restored his version, thus ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR. MIND YOU; Calthinus made a talk page section in September 2018 about the very same content, but "Leo Freeman" never bothered to participate.[51]
• Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[52]
• Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[53]
• Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[54]
• Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[55]
• Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[56]
• Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".[57]-[58]
• Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").[59]
• Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.[60]
• Added Armenian Highlands to the Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey article without edit summary/explanation.[61]
• Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[62]-[63]
• Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[64]
• Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[65]

I issued him an AA2 warning in the past with clear examples of his disruptive editorial pattern, to which he unfortunately never replied.[66] Looking at the compelling evidence, I don't think this editor is here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the depth of how problematic this pattern was before -- I had only interacted with the ultranationalist edits on Armenia, i.e. attempts to date Armenia's history back to a "traditional" date with no sourcing at all before 2400 BC. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear LouisAragon, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with my route, that was you who wrote me you are not saying my edits are "incorrect", isn't it ? Even the fellow list, you have chosen and put here, is absolutely correct, based on historical facts and on the basis to develop Wikipedia. Just as an example taking even editing about Proto-Greek, assume, you know certainly it was proper. So concerning traditional date "2492 BC" in the article "Armenia", one more time, friends, it is traditional (!) date, legend, and it was written not as a fact but certainly, I quote from the article - "Traditional date 2492 BC" [Battle of Hayoc Dzor / Հայոց ձորի ճակատամարտ, recommend to see “"HAYK", The Legend of Hayk and Bel] was / is it acceptable ? guess yes. And it was the basic view of that article for many years, before user Calthinus determined about its ultranationalist concept. You can see on the page "Japan" the traditional date - "660 BC", why it is not ultranationalist for you Calthinus ? Your way of thinking and ideology are ambidextrous. Because what you argue has nothing to do with nationalism, protocronism, that is encyclopedical issue, information. And I insist we must keep the traditional date as it was before, with the "Formation and independence" + of course, other data you deleted with it - Hayasa-Azzi (1500–1290 BC), Arme-Shupria (14th century–1190) and so on until the Orontid dynasty 6th century BC, not just (!) from the Orontid dynasty. The Armenian "Establishment history" is partial, uncompleted with your renovations and intentions Calthinus. Please, reconsider your approach to the issue. Leo Freeman (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Em, no, I produced sufficient and comprehensive scholarship, including Armenian scholarship, not only debunking the myth you are trying to restore in the infobox, but showing how it arose out of attempts by ethnonationalists to reframe global history. And I doubt LouisAragon will take this seriously either. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavoir via WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by @Leo Freeman. I do agree with the filing party that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone propose a topic ban of some sort? This seems like the sort of thing that would generate some consensus. Giving the admins something to act on, like enforcing a community-agreed-upon topic ban, would help. --Jayron32 13:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month WP:AA2 topic ban (broadly construed) 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus region. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon this isn't broad enough. Given what you have demonstrated about his history, and especially his tendencies to attribute accomplishments in the histories of the Levant, Greece, Georgia, and Iran to Armenians, I propose broadening the ban to cover all topics in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support--Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support per the above evidences.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support, as per reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Support; Strong evidences (as diffs), are provided. Rekonedth (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support a topic ban for all topics Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. Frankly, I'm not sure this will suffice; this user seems pretty single-minded (and largely WP:NOTHERE) with regard to the focus of their editing, so I'm doubtful this course of action will retain them as a useful editor in other areas; more likely is that they will sock or otherwise attempt to avoid or circumvent the block, or simply decide to leave the project entirely once they are thwarted in pushing a nationalist perspective in edits relating to the history of the region in questions. I would also note, there are some basic competency issues involved here--these issues were not been a focus of discussion above because the complaining editors decided to steer clear of it as ancillary issue, but as an un-involved party I will point out that, aside from having a sketchy understanding of policy and how to approach content in a neutral fashion, this editor also clearly has extremely limited facility with English. Reading their above comments, it is possible to divine the gist of their meaning, but they are clearly far too gung-ho and insistent given the limitations on their ability to communicate effectively here and engage with complex editorial issues in a language which they seem to be only semi-functional in. All of these factors taken together, I'm skeptical that a TBAN is going to resolve these issues in a fashion that retains an otherwise useful editor, but it is the standard approach in cases such as this, and I see no reason not to give the benefit for the doubt and start here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. per above evidence. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. The available evidence is overwhelming. I propose expanding the ban to cover all topics related to Armenia, Armenians and Armenian culture broadly construed, because in my experience geo limiting tends to be problematic in such cases. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Frequent disputes with Galatz

The following discussion is closed. 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 Galatz has frequently reverted edits done by and bullied other users on List of WWE personnel and other wrestling pages in regards to 205 Live. This is despite the existence of WP:RS and seems to be a case of WP:Own. The user has also personally attacked me, calling me and my edits "stupid" on my talk page. Evidence of personal attack here:[67] - User:Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I asked for a WP:RS yet still none of been provided. A user provided a number of blogs that all have been proven to fail that criteria. You made sweeping changes across over 30 pages made by someone on Christmas Eve, without allowing time for anyone to chime in or trying to get a wider range of opinions as required by WP:CONSENSUS. This has been discussed many times and always concluded with they are part of Raw still. I also notice you have failed to mention that I am not the only one who disagreed with this as you make it appear, see here as an example of another user reverting you [68].

No I did not call you or your edits stupid, I called the fact that something specifically billed as a Raw brand exclusive, could be dual-branded stupid; see [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Can you find one source to back up your claim that those were dual-branded? If not it is WP:OR.

If you want to make this change the WP:ONUS is on you to prove through WP:RS that it is in fact its own brand. So me asking you to provide them, is not WP:OWN, its following policies. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

WWE has literally just acknowledge 205 Live as a brand in this tweet they posted today. https://twitter.com/WWE/status/1077957293482958848 Who is more reliable than the company itself? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:PRIMARY, but that is not the point. WWE's official annual report, states on page 8 (14 of the PDF) [76] NXT has now evolved into our third brand after Raw and SmackDown. You mean to tell me that a tweet probably posted by an intern has better information than the annual report which is edited and reviewed by all the top executives?

The point is there is an established consensus and you changed over 30+ pages without following procedures to attempt to change that. And even if it is changed, when is it changed as of? As of 3 months ago when this was discussed, consensus was it was still a sub-division of Raw, but yet you have changed things that happened 2 years ago. Notice any flaws in that logic? Or the Annual Report dated 8 months ago also clearly stated they had 3 brands, but yet you changed older information than that.

Does 205 Live do their own tours or do they tour with Raw?

This is precisely why you should not rush to make these changes like you did. These are things are should be discussed before you make sweeping changes, so they can be addressed before, not after. It is also why you should have responded to my comments on the talk page references above or on your talk page, rather than going to ANI. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Going by WWE's official annual report, should we delete NXT UK (WWE brand), a brand supposedly created on December 15, 2016, as it wasn't included? Is it just a "sub-brand" of NXT? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, NXT UK does not tour. Does that make it "not a brand"? - User:Mt.FijiBoiz 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The facts very clearly changed since then. It was announced previously but launched over the summer. And yes it does tour by itself. It has done multiple shows all over UK. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinion Wow, it's been a while since we've been here, and while not a fan of rushing to ANI, I agree with the OP. For months now, involved editors have been requesting that this reorganization happen. Galatz has disagreed with them all, and in my opinion is bordering on WP:OWNing the article. While WWE may be a primary source, that source has been the primary means of determining the way the roster is listed here. I'm not inclined to see Galatz blocked, but some sort of warning should be issued, this particular issue should be settled on the talk page, and from last check it seems like the consensus is "A lot" to one in favor of the reorganization, with what seem to be good sources. Again, my opinion, my small weigh in here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kjscotte34: What is border line WP:OWN about asking for support for a stance taken? Per WP:ONUS that is the proper thing to do. And per WP:CONSENSUS, having 3 people agree on one pages talk page, on Christmas day when most people are not online, is not proper procedure for making changes to 30+ pages. They need to go to WP:PW and bring it to the attention of more than the 3 people who comments on that page. A page which many people in the project have said they do not follow because of various reasons when it was discussed before. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pro wrestling again. Color me shocked. But after repeated ANI reports like this I'm beginning to wonder how much of this sink on community time should be put down to the stupidity intrinsic to the subject and how much to one or two particular editors. EEng 18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Shocking, once again you add nothing to this conversation except for being WP:UNCIVIL. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • While EEng is being a bit of a troll, Galatz, you are the one digging your own grave here kind sir. When 5 editors are telling you to leave something alone, and you keep messing with it, it gets to the point of enough being enough, which is why you are here. The 5 don't have to convince you of anything, you need to convince the 5 why your POV should take precedence. That's kinda how things work around here. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Now playing on ANI pay-per-view

-EEng

• I have twice brought Vjmlhds to ANI about their editing practices, which have had them blocked 10 times prior. In both instances they swore they would stop making those edits [77] and [78]. In addition since that was brought up this user has even stated on my talk page that they were wrong in those edits [79]. Yet once again today this user is making the same edits again [80], even after being reminded to not making changes while a discussion is ongoing on the topic here [81] and here [82], they still are making the changes [83]. I believe it is clear that this user cannot be trusted and administrative action is needed. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This was clearly done for revenge because Galatz had an ANI issued against him...I'm not the one going against the consensus of 5 editors, dude. All I did was put things back according to the wishes of the clear consensus. You're coming across as very petty here, sir...not a good look. Vjmlhds (talk)

Come on Galatz. You're better than this. Cleary revenge for your ANI (which I issued against you for your predatory behavior and unlawful editing). - Mt.FijiBoiz 22:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I brought this here because you went against your word about not reverting. I am not worried about that above, I have not done anything wrong. Firstly this is not a !vote, so the quantity over quality of the stances are being ignored by you. In addition the issue has been on 1 talk page, it has not been brought to the wikiproject or anywhere else to gain a broader range of opinions, as WP:CONSENSUS requires and I have mentioned multiple times. In addition it was posted over Christmas 2 days ago, when most people are not online. That certainly does not allow time for a consensus to be reached. This change affects hundreds of articles and you and 2 other people decided among yourselves that a consensus was reached, without any effort to gain a true one. It is clear I am not alone on this as I am not the only person who reverted these changes/edits, the other people just do not know the conversation is happening, because you failed to notify anyone. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mt.FijiBoiz: That makes absolutely no sense, if it was revenge I would have brought you here. I have had the same issue here twice before with the same user, so to think it is revenge is just silly. I stated 4 months ago this user should not have been taken at their word, and I am here defending that, it has nothing to do with you bringing me here, because that was just ridiculous and baseless. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Galatz Please...you are so full of crap, your eyes are brown. And this "I failed to notify anyone" business...what is that?..do I have to be like Moses and stand on top of Mt. Sinai with stone tablets and make a proclamation every time I make an edit. Own up to it...you are throwing a temper tantrum because a 5-1 consensus is going against you, and you decided that if you were going to Hell, you're gonna try to take me with you. Ain't gonna work, because others can see through your shenanigans. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want but read WP:CONSENSUS and tell me how that was followed. For example, the wikiproject has discussed multiple times and always concluded it is not a brand, but yet in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you believe that one pages talk page over rides that. That is not how it works. You want to change it, go and get opinions from people who follow more than just that one page, and give it more than 2 holiday days for people to chime in. That is how things work around here. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Galatz You're persistent...I'll give you that, but what do you say to the 4 other editors (Fiji, Ian, Oknazevad, IP 32) who are telling you to back off (5 if you count Kjscotte34, who gave you what for above). If you want to go down with the ship, that's on you...just remember, all going down with the ship is is a fancy way to say you're gonna drown. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I notice you didn't respond to one point I made. There is a process for gaining a consensus and that has not occurred. I have seen people say before they do not follow that page for one reason or another. Are you saying they do not get a say in this sweeping change? If you opened it up to everyone, and after a week the consensus went against me, than I do not care. But you did not follow the process, that is why it is an issue. I have participated in dozens of move or other discussions that didn't go my way, but once the process has gone through the proper channels I go with the consensus regardless of my opinion. But the consensus process has been ignored here, that is the issue. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

First, cute EEng, but I'd have used a steel cage match myself. On to Galatz, I didn't respond to your points, because you have no points. When you issue your own ANI like 10 minutes after someone else issues one on you, how can anyone take anything you say at face value when you are making such an obvious "revenge porn" ANI? Your credibility here is like ZERO. It's like you burned your own house down, but then you point to your neighbor who has a fireplace. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is this going to be one of those threads where users involved in what ultimately boils down to a content dispute behave worse and worse and the "winner" is whoever goads the other person into saying something that gets them chastised more or even blocked? Because regardless of whatever the hell's going on, that's what happens when both parties are dead set on responding to every single point before anyone else has replied. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson Regarding the content dispute, myself and 4 other editors have come to a consensus on an issue, and Galatz just doesn't know when to stop "fighting the good fight". Also, just a few minutes after an editor (not me) issues Galatz an ANI, Galatz issues one on me. This was clearly just done out of spite/revenge. I'm not looking for a fight or any back and forth, but I do have the right to defend myself after basically being "revenge porned" Vjmlhds (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Frequent disruption by DBigXray

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

---

DBigXray has been tireless with his unrepentant disruptive editing and harassment. There are a plethora of instances of him engaging in blatant misconduct lately, most of which I will enumerate below.

• On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard[84]; however he not only disregarded the warning but also badgered him, and continued mindlessly tagging editors, as evidenced by his edits on article's talk page.[85][86]

The intensity and frequency of such allegations have only increased in this month as evidenced by diffs below.

• 2 December 2018; alleged that "!voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here (Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November)" were part of the "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev" and/or "members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev". He repeated same allegations later on.[87]

• He has been told enough times there to stop throwing these allegations[88][89] but he continues.

• Creates Pakistani administered Kashmir, a WP:POVFORK, against long-term consensus.

• Bludgeons entire AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir.
• Shows his failure to get over the outcome by bludgeoning on the talk page of the closing admin.[90]
• Starts a DRV and claims that everybody who commented against his creation is either a meat puppet or a sock puppet.[91]
• Editors asked DBigXray to either strike the accusations or take them somewhere else,[92][93] but DBigXray only doubles down with false accusations of socking,[94][95][96] even going as far as to claim that DRV "has not been spared by the puppet masters"[97] despite there was no participation by blocked editors.

• DBigXray has been engaging in this nationalistic POV pushing over "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" since the day he joined Wikipedia,[98][99] and even then he was exhausting patience of others who told him that he should change his ways and respect consensus.[100]

• There have also been elements of anti-Islamic POV pushing by Dbigxray, for example, he made an edit riddled with anti-Islamic WP:OR on Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, that "These islamic militants needed another venue for carrying out their holy war (Jihad)."[101]

• On Khalistan movement:

• Back in July, Dbigxray alleged Elephanthunter of being "a case WP:COI" on a DRN concerning a content dispute at Khalistan movement[102], and upon being asked to substantiate his false allegations, he refused and did not retract the false allegations.[103]
• Edit warred to remove about 19,000 bytes content by citing "Expanding article".[104][105] (August 2018)
• Adds his WP:OR,[106] removes content by falsely describing it as "WP:SPS"[107][108], "WP:FRINGE"[109]. (August 2018)
• Removes content sourced to reliable academic sources by claiming it as "rm opinions presented as fact)",[110] "rm opinions added as fact"[111]. (December 2018)
• I restored these edits[112] and detailed my explanations on talk.[113][114]
• After I investigated his months old content removal on talk page,[115] EdJohnston would notify him of the discussion.[116]
• He still claims that there was no issue with his edits and his removal of content was totally justified.[117]

• Makes 5 back-to-back reverts on Rafale deal controversy in less than 49 hours, while the dispute is ongoing on the talk page, in order to bully others into submission. Not to mention the use of downright misleading and/or deceptive edit summaries in his reverts for mass deleting large chunk of content from the article (citing refbombing and accusing others of ownership): [118], [119][120][121][122] The 5th revert came after a warning.[123] Add to this, the obvious stonewalling on talk page as evidenced here.

TLDR; DBigXray edit wars to push his nationalist POV against consensus. He rejects reliable sources as "opinion", engages in original research and claims his opponents to be socks, meat puppets or COI editors.

It was hardly 30 days ago when the ANI report,[124] resulted in a formal warning, but DBigXray is frequently disrupting Wikipedia and showing lack of improvement. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. DBigXray's behavior involves misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and failure to assume good faith. I've had run-ins with this editor while he was rewriting the articles for Khalistan movement and Operation Blue Star.

In both instances, DBigXray rewrote the articles from an Indian nationalist stance while active nonviolent protests were happening in India (on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star). He relabeled nonviolent separatists as militant extremists [125]. He removed enormous chunks of historical context for the movement, and steamrolled opposition (cited in the above examples as [126] and [127]).

Attempts to reconcile our disagreements were futile. DBigXray collapsed our 3PO's comment when it did not go in his favor (accusing the 3PO of being a sockpuppet), [128] He continued edits related to our dispute during our discussion on DRN, [129], and started to debate me directly at DRN, against the wishes of our DRN moderator. [130] His latest comments concerning that subject continue to be completely unapologetic.

So yes, while DBigXray makes some good contributions, his topic bias makes him incredibly disruptive and hostile, especially regarding India-Pakistan relations. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DBX is also disruptive outside Indian subcontinent subject. He was violating BLP on Killing of Jamal Khashoggi by adding a cartoon and rejecting input of other editors about his actions.[131][132][133] Also see Talk:Emirati passport#Requested move 11 November 2018. Qualitist (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Opinion I was really hoping not see another one of those here, but oh well.. I've had my encounter with this user last month regarding copyright violation here Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 1#Copyvio and move discussion dispute Talk:Emirati passport#Requested move 11 November 2018 and for that I have been publicly harassed and bludgeoned on my talk page here User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy. I have already discussed how I have been harassed in the last ANI discussion [134] here in which he has called my opinion "content of BS", called me a liar, a POV pusher, among other things etc.. which resulted in an official one time only warning. I don't wish to bring the past up, but I don't wish anyone else to be harassed either. I do acknowledge that his user has an extensive list of constructive edits in Wikipedia, however, that does not give him the right to be name calling others. I am hoping he has learned from his mistakes and has not harassed others since. In effort not to be a meat puppet and gang on this user, I will leave this here and leave the discussion. I wish him no ill will and I really wished that no one else would go through the same thing and no future ANI discussions open regarding him. He is an editor with numerous edit counts and probably more experienced that I am and I bear him no ill will even though he has called me numerous names. I hope more experienced neutral users and administrators judge on this issue. I have not personally witnessed any new name calling behavior from him again nor have I been involved in any of the disputes mentioned in this ANI apart from the ones I mentioned. I just wanted to share my thoughts as someone who had a previous encounter. Ping me for any questions, I will be happy to answer any. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Response by DBigXray

I will copy the diffs and reply on it inline for ease of reading.

• On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard[135]; GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I had replied to Amakuru then as well, along with my justification. Which is as follows.

The Editor's edit history is out there for everyone else to see. Opposite to what Amkuru was suggesting, my template has nothing to do with opposing view. I would have added the template no matter which side the user had voted on. I am not sure how familiar you are with this topic (Jaggi Vasudev) but please note, out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits (including the DYK) were made on JV topic. And some of them, I find borderline promotional. Also his deleted article Insight: The DNA of Success which I couldn't see, was deleted as possible WP:G11 promo content, based on the note here User_talk:Bsnigam#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Insight:_The_DNA_of_Success was also on JV (check Google Insight%3A+The+DNA+of+Success). I guess, both of us are just seeing the things differently here. So we can agree to disagree.

More to follow... --DBigXrayᗙ 20:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Why you are so rigid about accusing that editor of COI only because he made "51 Live edits" to the subject? It is also possible that the user is largely interested in that subject and he has not yet decided whether to contribute some more or not. Your actions constitute harassment becausr you are accusing editors of COI without any proper evidences. Qualitist (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have much time on my hands right now, so I will write a brief comment. I was noticing this talk page discussion at Talk:Khalistan movement this morning, where Wiki.0hlic and GenuineArt, who hardly have any record of participation on that page, raised a long series of questions about DBigXray's edits done over last several months. DBigXray has patiently explained his rationale behind each edit, which were quite satisfactory, as far as I could see. Then these two editors were joined by two others, Orientls and शिव साहिल, who also don't have much of a record of participation on that page, in an obvious effort to gang up and intimidate DBigXray. I don't see any "nationalistic POV" on either side, but just plain personal vendetta directed at DBigXray, probably overflowing from whatever happened at the Jaggi Vasudev page.

DBigXray and I frequently collaborate, most recently at the Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts page, which is just about to get put up for DYK. Yes, it is quite a shocking subject, one that might be regarded as being "nationalistic" (whatever that means), but the subject matter is quite solid and backed up by a dozen high-quality scholarly sources.

The Pakistan administered Kashmir page was created a bit prematurely before finding genuine new content. As it stood, it represented a WP:CFORK, as noted by the nominator of its AfD. But at least one of these four editors showed up at the AfD, calling it a WP:POVFORK, but never explained what "POV" it supposedly represented. I am confident that, with enough work, genuine new content will be gathered in due course and the page will be recreated. There is no "POV" about it, either "nationalistic" or otherwise.

I suggest that these four editors should lay off DBigXray and go about their own business. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Orientls, शिव साहिल made no participation in the page move. If you really want to defend the indefensible actions DBigXray you would at least need to stop falsifying the histories of other editors since DBigXray has shown enough times that he is here for righting great wrongs and he can't contribute without harassing other editors. People will comment here on the basis of the outcome of the AfD than what a single participant believed contrary to the outcome. Qualitist (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

GenuineArt made no participation in the "page move" either. Yet, here he is calling it a POVFORK. The ganging up against DBigXray is quite clear.

If he has harassed you or anybody else, please feel free to bring it up. But all this talk of "nationalistic POV" is claptrap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Another example of aggressive nationalist POV was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears. After the AfD resulted in Keep (no one voted for delete), DBigXray went to bludgeon talk page of closer to tell him that he is the only one who is correct.[136] Qualitist (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Response by DBigXray (contd)

I will copy the diffs and reply on it inline for ease of reading.

• On 9 November, he was reprimanded by Amakuru for tagging good faith editors as COI editors without any evidence and/or report at the relevant noticeboard[137]; GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I had replied to Amakuru during this discussion [138] with him, along with my justification. Which is as follows. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Editor's edit history is out there for everyone else to see. Opposite to what Amkuru was suggesting, my template has nothing to do with opposing view. I would have added the template no matter which side the user had voted on. I am not sure how familiar you are with this topic (Jaggi Vasudev) but please note, out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits (including the DYK) were made on JV topic. And some of them, I find borderline promotional. Also his deleted article Insight: The DNA of Success which I couldn't see, was deleted as possible WP:G11 promo content, based on the note here User_talk:Bsnigam#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Insight:_The_DNA_of_Success was also on JV (check Google Insight%3A+The+DNA+of+Success). I guess, both of us are just seeing the things differently here. So we can agree to disagree. DBigXrayᗙ 4:30 am, 10 November 2018, Saturday (1 month, 16 days ago)

• however he not only disregarded the warning but also badgered him, and continued mindlessly tagging editors, as evidenced by his edits on article's talk page.[139][140] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

As one can see in this diff of my comments I had also added the reason for the tags on the comment of these 3 editors.

One of the editors I had tagged Regstuff was already CBANned here at ANI --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• 2 December 2018; alleged that "!voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here (Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November)" were part of the "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev" and/or "members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev". He repeated same allegations later on.[141] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

In my comment at MRV I had not taken any names and by the phrase "PR machinery" and "fan club" I was referring to the 3 editors who I had tagged in the RM discussion. In my comment at MRV I had also noted that I was annoyed by the reverts of the other set of 3 editors who were taking turns, to hat and hide an MRV comment, that disagreed with their own opinion. After getting reverted a second time by this set of editors at MRV, I made this comment as a note to the closing editor to not discount the hatted comment, and also made a thread at the MRV talk page to bring this disruptive hatting to the notice of other MRV participants to revert it. After a while another editor Erik, expressed his concern at this biased hatting calling it totally wrong and the hatting was removed by another editor here, Strangely, this time no tag-teamer reverted him to hat it again or protested against unhatting. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• He has been told enough times there to stop throwing these allegations[142][143] but he continues. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• As I explained above I had given my reasons to believe that "The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts,". Another editor at the MRV discussion had expressed concern at the passionate comments [144] by an MRV participant, who did not disclose it in his first comment but later on admitted on the same thread that he was "influenced" by the teaching of Jaggi Vasudev. I take this admission further vindication of my comment above. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Creates Pakistani administered Kashmir, a WP:POVFORK, against long-term consensus. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a classic content dispute but I will have to address it.

1. As for the Article, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is the term by which UN refers to this area of Azad Kashmir + Gilgit Baltistan.Reuters: United Nations urges inquiry into human rights violations in Kashmir And this is the term by which the neutral international mainstream media refers this geographical entity,BBC: Kashmir profile|, "Pakistani controlled Kashmir" is the other widely used term for the same Geo area. CNN: Kashmir Fast Facts --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
2. WP:POVFORK talks about both article on the "same subject". There is "no other article" for the same subject (geographical entity). It is quite obvious from the maps itself (see above) that the geographic entities of Pakistan administered Kashmir are not the same as either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.
3. If there was an existing Pakistan administered Kashmir and then someone created another article at "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" then one could have argued that its a POV FORK, but with only 1 existing article for the subject you cannot claim WP:FORK, let alone WP:POVFORK
4. Long term consensus about this topic was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 [145], till 2012 [146] when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
5. Regarding the point of "nothing new" in the article, I had noted that this geographic entity is federally administered by Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan. The United Nations and the international media refer to this entire region as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so this article can discuss the history, administration and geography of this geographic entity.

• Bludgeons entire AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Calling my AfD participation as bludgeoning is your personal opinion to which I do not agree with. I don't agree that my discussions in an AfD debate among the AfD participants amounts to bludgeoning. Bludgeoning is an extreme case of disruptive interaction at AfD and I don't consider my comments were close to bludgeoning. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Shows his failure to get over the outcome by bludgeoning on the talk page of the closing admin.[147] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review states that If you believe a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
• I believe that the AfD should have been closed as Keep or No consensus so obviously Following the Deletion policy I will have to discuss it with the closing admin, So I started a thread at the closing admin's talk page and made my case and explained my point in detail, I don't see anything wrong here. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Starts a DRV and claims that everybody who commented against his creation is either a meat puppet or a sock puppet.[148] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Again, per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review after discussing with the closing admin, I proceeded with my case to the WP:DRV, So I don't see why starting a DRV to further discuss my case is problematic here. At DRV An editor had then commented that sock puppetry claim was unfounded So I responded with the evidence that I had collected that had made me to suspect the sock/meat puppetry. Later on 2 of the AfD participants were blocked as Socks [149] which proved my suspicion.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Editors asked DBigXray to either strike the accusations or take them somewhere else,[150][151] but DBigXray only doubles down with false accusations of socking,[152][153][154] even going as far as to claim that DRV "has not been spared by the puppet masters"[155] despite there was no participation by blocked editors. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• At the DRV Cunard had first raised the point about the possibility of nationalistic editors participating in the AfD based on his own observation from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets, and the "India-Pakistan" logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. To which I added my own observation and evidence. And interestingly 2 of the AfD participants have already been blocked as Socks [156] So I see myself as suspecting an obvious problem and sharing my viewpoint along with the evidence that I collect. Do I believe the AfD was disrupted? Yes I still strongly believe that the AfD was disrupted, and the 2 blocked socks are vindication of my belief on sock disruption of the said AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• DBigXray has been engaging in this nationalistic POV pushing over "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" since the day he joined Wikipedia,[157][158] and even then he was exhausting patience of others who told him that he should change his ways and respect consensus.[159] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• These diffs are 7 year old content disputes on controversial topics related to India Pakistan dredged up to make up a malicious case. I had raised my concern and GenuineArts is calling my "civil objections", as "POV pushing". The editor with whom I was having content disputes was later INDEFfed. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• There have also been elements of anti-Islamic POV pushing by Dbigxray, for example, he made an edit riddled with anti-Islamic WP:OR on Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, that "These islamic militants needed another venue for carrying out their holy war (Jihad)."[160] - GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts has already been reviewed by 5 different editors as seen on the discussion on its Talkpage. Also it must be noted that the DYK has been already been successfully reviewed, approved and moved to Prep 6
• The topic that I usually edit based on my interest are generally (but not limited to) International terrorism related. And I often focus on India-Pakistan and Afghanistan related topics. If someone wants to maliciously tag my edits as biased Anti-Islamic POV, I would call that his own personal opinion and would invite them to review the articles on Islamic individuals that I have created and make their own opinion about my edits. e.g. Abdul Rehman Makki, Zabiuddin Ansari, Iqbal Bhatkal, Naamen Meziche, Fasih Mohammed, Yasin Bhatkal, August 2012 Mansehra Shia massacre, 2010 Bangalore stadium bombing some more terrorism related articles 1986 Hoshiarpur bus massacre, 1986 Muktsar bus massacre, 1983 Dhilwan bus massacre, 1986 Punjab Bus massacre, 1987 Lalru bus massacre, Operation Ababeel, 1984 Indian Airlines Airbus A300 hijacking, Indian Airlines IC-423.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• On Khalistan movement:

Back in July, Dbigxray alleged Elephanthunter of being "a case WP:COI" on a DRN concerning a content dispute at Khalistan movement[161], and upon being asked to substantiate his false allegations, he refused and did not retract the false allegations.[162]

Edit warred to remove about 19,000 bytes content by citing "Expanding article".[163][164] (August 2018)

Adds his WP:OR,[165] removes content by falsely describing it as "WP:SPS"[166][167], "WP:FRINGE"[168]. (August 2018)

Removes content sourced to reliable academic sources by claiming it as "rm opinions presented as fact)",[169] "rm opinions added as fact"[170]. (December 2018)

I restored these edits[171] and detailed my explanations on talk.[172][173]

After I investigated his months old content removal on talk page,[174] EdJohnston would notify him of the discussion.[175]

He still claims that there was no issue with his edits and his removal of content was totally justified.[176] GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)''

• These are more content disputes, dredged up from several months, all these has already been responded to yesterday [177] on the article talk page and the article talk archives. If someone wants to continue the content dispute related discussion, please join me with a "comment on the content" and I will happy to discuss more on the content disputes. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Makes 5 back-to-back reverts on Rafale deal controversy in less than 49 hours, while the dispute is ongoing on the talk page, in order to bully others into submission. Not to mention the use of downright misleading and/or deceptive edit summaries in his reverts for mass deleting large chunk of content from the article (citing refbombing and accusing others of ownership): [178], [179][180][181][182] The 5th revert came after a warning.[183] Add to this, the obvious stonewalling on talk page as evidenced here. GenuineArt (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Again These are more content disputes, Rafale deal controversy as the name suggests is a controversial article, and discussion on Talk:Rafale deal controversy to resolve the content dispute is ongoing. I started improving the article on 23 December, immediately after my first revert I joined the talk page discussion, and to resolve the issues if any. That is 2 reverts. Thereafter an IP from Pakistan and a new editor who restored the WP:REFBOMBs, and were reverted. I have given specific edit summaries explaining each of my edits while fixing the factual errors and folks are welcome to compare and decide if my edits on that Article were useful or disruptive. If someone wants to join or continue the content dispute related discussion, ANI is not the right place for that, they can join me with a "comment on the content" and I will be happy to discuss more on the content disputes at the respective talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• About User:Wikiemirati, we had our last interaction on 14 Nov where we decided not to interact with each other, and I have avoided any kind of interaction with this user since then, but I cannot say that he has avoided me, since every time an ANI thread has come up against me User:Wikiemirati has participated posting about our past disputes.

• To conclude my response on the above allegations, I don't remember if I ever had disputes with GenuineArt before, I am actually surprised to see his comment here, that appears to me, to be made with malicious intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by some editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I am a page mover and I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India_since_2014#Jayant_Sinha_Garlands_Lynching_Convicts, Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Hindu_Supremacist, Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Need_suggestion_for_perpetrators_field_in_the_infobox and I believe this thread at ANI is third attempt in the "ongoing series at ANI", by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes, by getting me sanctioned.
• (I also note that Qualitist (talk · contribs) who made an account on 2018-10-18, has participated in all these ANI threads against me, including AfD [184] mentioned above and [185][186], proving that he is following me around. ) --DBigXrayᗙ 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You still dont seem to be accepting that you are being disruptive with your with your deliberate bludgeoning , walls of texts and lack of acknowledgement of your problematic actions.

You are engaging in clear cut edit warring when you are making 5 reverts in 2 days against multiple editors.

Which "2 blocked socks" you are talking about? Farooqahmadbhat has been blocked for using a sock than being a sock himself. You are already aware of these facts[187] yet you continue to falsify histories of editors for either making your point or harassing them. In these linked discussions I am seeing that editors have pointed out that you lack understanding of WP:RS[188][189] ][190] which I have also done for more than a month now. You prefer ignoring input of others and instead prefer arguing that how your unreliable sources are reliable[191] or how reliable sources are unreliable[192] according to these linked discussions show.

Can you explain if there is any benefit in having you here when you have so many general issues? No one has that much time to keep tolerating your endless bludgeoning and IDHT behavior. Qualitist (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seeing that DBigXray even denies accepting his most obvious trait (WP:BLUD) by claiming that "I don't agree that my discussions in an AfD debate among the AfD participants amounts to bludgeoning",[193] while also agreeing that "bludgeoning is an extreme case of disruptive interaction", then I think a WP:CIR block is the only reasonable option. His participation, whether here or outside[194][195][196][][197] has been a textbook of bludgeoning. Poor understanding of policies and harassment of other editors is highly evident. Also read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions where he escaped a block for his battleground mentality. Rzvas (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Bloodofox

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

---

Pretty much over the last few hours a constant barrage of assumptions of bad faith, dismissing based upon accusations of ideological bias and accusations of coordinating. AS well as a refusal to stop.

[[198]]

[[199]]

[[200]]

[[201]]

[[202]]

[[203]]

[[204]]

[[205]]

I have asked them to stop [[206]].

Note there is in fact a lot more of this. over at [[207]], I just got bored listing it all, and frankly that is the problem. This is getting boring and tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

To note, I'm also rather bored by Slatersteven's behavior here, along with that of his friend @Fyunck(click): (here's a fun diff). While the site allows proponents of this stuff—anti-global warming "alarmists", Young Earth creationists—to edit, anti-heretic coordination (lots of fun stiff like this) while ignoring guidelines like WP:PROVEIT and espousing anti-science stuff gets old pretty quickly (eg. [208]), and of course when all other options run out, they'll drag you out here in hope of a reprimand to get what they want. Anything to avoid finding reliable sources, I guess.

I could also flood you folks with plenty of diffs of attempts to get out of WP:RS and stuff like Slater badgering me with an incorrect revert warning while turning a blind eye to his pal's itchy trigger finger (classic), but do note that now that attempts at keeping cryptozoology from being listed as a pseudoscience on the site have failed, the goal here seems to simply get links to Dave's biblical cryptid emporium on Wikipedia or whatever wherever possible, so please do take a look at the threads associated with the diffs, as these articles definitely need more eyes.

Maybe one of these guys knows who has been sending me anonymous threats through the site about me editing the cryptozoology articles. Care to share, guys? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read that thread [[209]]?Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I take it that was such a blatant display of anti-consensus revert-warring on Fyunck's part that you decided to step in. Personally, were I for some reason taking your position, I'd be doing more of that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No I do not know who is sending you anonymous threats (nor am I even aware it was happening or what their nature is). If you are being sent anonymous threats you need to contact an Admin, or launch ANI over it. But I resent the implication of your comment, it is a prefect example of your aspersion tactics.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I've mentioned these threats a few times now, you were in fact aware of it. Only now are you acknowledging that. I've notified admins. I'm not keeping quiet about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Could one of you please post a link to the RfC/discussion that is frequently mentioned on Talk:List of cryptids? It's hard for uninvolved editors to form an opinion without that. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC).

Sure, it's at the top here: 5#Merger_proposal. Below you'll find an addendum that we also mention a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw a notice on my talk page, but not sure what is required of me here, or what would help the situation. Am I fed up with editor Bloodofox's reverts and article ownership, yes. BF seems to think that if it is not science-related it has no place on wikipedia. BF seems to ignore mythology articles with mythology sources, fantasy Tolkien beast articles with sources from non-science Tolkien books (such as articles on Balrogs, Orcs, Hobbits, Ents, Noldor, etc.), Ghost articles with sources from ghost books. These fantasy articles exist all over wikipedia, but this particular article at List of cryptids seems to be particularly hated by this editor. I'm not sure why. It's not like it's being inserted into a scientific article or being portrayed as anything except a pseudoscience. I guess I look at it as fun and as long as readers are aware of that I see no harm. And this is just a list... a simple list of fantasy cryptid creatures. Did I warn editor Bloodofox on his talk page (without reporting the incident to administrators) about 5 reverts in one day at List of Cryptids, yes. Has he just made a backhand accusation about me threatening him offline (or knowing someone who did), yes. That does not mean I would have brought him to Ani as I have begun to look at it as "This is par for the course for Bloodofox", it's just Bloodofox being Bloodofox these days. I know I have to keep the article on a watchlist in case he tries to delete things as they have done in the past or in case he writes fabrications about me on article talk pages. I just wish he'd find something else to work on at Wikipedia as cryptozoology-related things do not seem to be a topic where BFox works and plays well with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As one of the most prolific editors on the topic of folklore and its popular genre myth on the site, I appreciate the humor this response has brought me, unintentional or otherwise. Yes, please, do tell us more about how we source our myth and folklore articles on the site! None of those filthy academics on our folklore articles, no siree. @Katolophyromai:, you're going to enjoy this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, all the sources on an article like Paul Bunyan are all scientific in nature. No Folklore books or websites used at all. Good old sources like Folklore and folktales collected by Charles E. Brown, the Paul Bunyan Fine Art souvenir collection of ready-made myths, Lumberjack Myths by J.E. Rockwell, Fearsome Creatures of the Underwoods, the MF Amazing facts page. I'm not complaining about that page but one persons junk is another persons gold. I'm just saying treat articles on fantasy and myths and folklore equally, and stop the reverts you do on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not the wisest path for you to take here, but since I've seen you play this game before and this is a fine place to highlight it, why not.

Of course, that particular article definitely needs some work—it's not GA quality by any means, which is presumably why you chose it for your feature above—but you'll still find a handful of quality secondary sources on there, like Gartenberg's solid 1949 article for the The Journal of American Folklore. Still, our Paul Bunyan definitely needs work and is currently nowhere near the quality of other highly visible folklore articles like Dragon at the moment (read 'em and weep: Dragon#References). You might also have a look-see at other GA-quality articles in this realm, like valkyrie; eg. Valkyrie#Citations.

Understanding the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is crucial here, and of course we slice out poor quality sources on these pages just like anywhere else we see it (it's that whole WP:RS thing again and those pesky academics who think they just know so much, damn them!). And so I'm a little confused: Are you asking me to clean that one up? Is this a cry for help? If so, I'm afraid I'm currently booked, but go for it! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's what should happen: topic ban both fyunck(click) and bloodofox from list of cryptids. Very narrow topic ban. No blocks, no subject-based topic ban; just that one list and presto! much pain disappears! The former has been working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing for years; the latter has been waging war on this page for years, with a persistent battleground approach and a tendency to wikilawyer. It's draining, and why I unwatched a few months back. Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology -- paraphrasing there, but when he accused me of being part of some ridiculous "cryptozoology bloc" he became the only experienced editor I've ever asked not to post on my talk page, to the best of my recollection. I would very much like to see bloodofox's time that was spent fixated on this page spent instead on the folklore articles he does a lot of great work to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: What are you talking about? I have always said we must include sourcing on every item on the list. I recommended an extra column several times so we could source these things properly. I even started a draft of it before Bloodofox basically told me it was useless and I had to ask him to stop hammering on me on my own talk page. You say I'm "working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing"... can you tell me how many of these creatures I've added to the list? I don't know if I've added any and I've deleted several when people try to add new ones where I couldn't find sources for cryptid. My stance has always been the same... if it can be sourced as a cryptid it belongs on the list as long as it's sourced as such. That's pretty much it. Another item I'd like to ask. Long ago when I removed a few entries on a completely different topic, just because there was no sourcing (it was not a BLP) I was told by an administrator not to do that. If it was inflammatory items sure. I was asked if I looked for sources myself to make sure since sometimes it was simply careless sourcing rather than an item that should really be removed. I was told that this would be the nicer way to do things. Are you saying I was told wrong way back then? Did bloodofox look at all to make sure he wasn't deleting things that were easily sourced? Or did he just blanket remove anything unsourced KNOWING that there were editors on the talk page who basically said no to his arbitrary time limit? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ll be glad to respond to the above mention with diffs when I’m not on phone here. In the mean time, I recommend taking the above summary with a little salt, as he’s relentlessly backed Fyunck and Slater every step of the way, including pushing for the inclusion of fringe sources over reliable sources, making reverts at convenient times over WP:PROVEIT for the the duo, and explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process. The user appears to have developed an axe to grind.

That said, I’ll volunteer a self-article ban for a year if that means deleting all unsourced content, and self-imposed one year article bans for Rhodo, Slater, and Fyunck, as I agree with Rhodo that my time is spent best elsewhere and the remaining editors can no doubt hash it out from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how noble of you! You agree to an article ban if you're given everything you want first. Your comments here are simply drenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, none of that old discussion involving you and I was at all personal, and it's hardly a reason to turn this discussion into a 'hey, I also wasn't able to use a source after Bloodofox requested others take a closer look at it' shiv party. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I have no memory of that, but if it suits you to think that I made my comment based on our "history" together, and not because you're exhibiting pretty much pure battleground behavior right here on this thread, so be it -- whatever gets you through the night, as John Lennon sang. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) extra indent for clarity. I'm going to reply to this one misleading, well-poisoning response. However, as I find engaging with bloodofox very draining and unpleasant, I'm going to try to limit myself to this one response rather than be drawn into a more protracted back-and-forth. It would be better left to fresh eyes to determine what should happen, anyway.

"[I] relentlessly backed..." someone I just said should be topic banned...

"[I've made] reverts at convenient times [...] for the duo?" -- this sort of insinuation that I (or others) are part of some conspiracy or coordinated effort to thwart him pervades bloodofox's rhetoric about this.

"explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process" -- There was one time that someone else brought up an issue about cryptozoology. This was around the time that I came to appreciate the depth of bloodofox's battleground approach to this page. It seemed like yet another thread on the same subject. When I commented on it, I started by saying it was another instance of bloodofox vs. list of cryptids. I misread who started the thread. I realized my mistake a few minutes later, reverted myself, and posted a revised comment, which I would have posted anyway, of course, had I read it correctly. In this faux pas bloodofox has found a useful well-poisoning tool, making it seem like (a) I made that mistake more than once, and/or (b) that I only care about the content because it's bloodofox, rather than the reverse.

According to the stats tool, I have a net of -34k on that page (as in, removing a bunch -- the very thing that bloodofox fights for), but bloodofox focuses on the one key thing on which we have repeatedly disagreed. That one thing is also the thing about which he charges that, effectively "[whoever disagrees] spits on WP:RS and loves FRINGE sources". It's not about basic WP:V. That's uncontroversial. Saying it's just about wanting sources is misleading. When I've reverted him and restored unsourced information it was not for that reason but because of a bigger picture problem with his removal. For example, a couple reverts when he edit warred over blanking the page last year (two of many attempts to kill the page).

The main point of contention is this: whether WP:RS says that no cryptozoology source can be used to verify a subject's inclusion in the list. We even had an RfC recently. The closer said rather explicitly that just isn't the case -- they're not prohibited from fulfilling that verification role, even though obviously better sources are better. We can use our WP:RS guidelines to determine which cryptozoology sources are better than others. It's not all or nothing. Obviously most cryptozoology sources are lousy for most things. In this list article, however, the issue isn't whether to use them to make a scientific claim or even a statement of fact beyond "x is a cryptid". It's simply that part of the inclusion criteria for this list article is, self-evidently, that a source verifies the entry is regarded as a cryptid. Cryptid is part of the vocabulary of cryptozoology, hence a lot of the sources which say "this is a cryptid" are about cryptozoology. I have argued that there exist sources about cryptozoology that can be reliable for this sort of verification (a book about it published by a publisher that has editorial oversight, for example, but not someone's blog -- the sort of thing fyunck wants to include). So I'm one of the cryptozoologist pov-pushers, clearly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

So, about what Rhodo calls a "faux pas" above: While he takes the time there to complain how miserable it was to talk to me—a shame, I don't mind talking—he didn't take the time to provide a diff, but here it is. The anger is real, folks. Rhodo also fails to note that the source he's pushing is specifically a book by cryptozoologist and cryptozoology apologetic George Eberhart, which is just as reliable Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Emporium or whatever, because Eberhart does not appear to be some kind of authority in the subculture. And despite the addendum's commentary and as others highlight, the list wasn't build around Eberhart's criteria, and that's because nobody seems to use it but Eberhart. Eberhart might not believe every other "cryptid" is a space alien or a demon or a ghost or whatever, but many others do, as he himself disapprovingly notes. Eberhart, Uncle Jim, it's all pseudoscience with zero support in academia, and happens to all be closely tied to well-funded and aggressive Young Earth creationist groups (academic discussion on this topic here).

Speaking of, you'll hear Rhodo talk about a 'cryptozoology bloc', as if it's something I've imagined and as if I haven't had to deal with groups of cryptozoologists here. And, in fact, as if I haven't witnessed their attempts to organize off Wikipedia to influence our coverage here (I'll hold back on providing a bunch of forums I've been tipped off to so I don't somehow out anyone who isn't using their user name here, but here's what seems to be a safe enough example, complete with a fun comment by the author on how "The wikipedia wars will be resolved in due time". (By the way, blog author, if you're reading this—you probably are—I am not somehow affiliated with Darren Naish and I welcome you to keep leaving "highly critical" reviews of his books on Amazon if you so desire.)

And that brings me to: rage at bloodofox! A lot of the rage you're seeing from these quarters aimed at yours truly stems in fact not from this list. Rather, much of this hate ultimately draws from the fact that Wikipedia now lists cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, a direct result of article long hours of clean up by myself and other editors. See, in the past, the site hosted thousands of articles that imagined cryptozoology to be some kind of field of zoology (as Loxton and Prothero note, this is a typical habit of the cryptozoology subculture). Old Wikipedia "cryptid" articles in turn fed into a lot of the uncritical, often older listicle-quality media articles you'll see Slater add to the list of cryptids. Having your pet pseudoscience listed on Wikipedia for what it is just ain't great SEO for the subculture.

At the end of the day, what some here are presenting as complicated is extremely simple—It's exactly what we've encountered with every other pseudoscience on the site: Attempts to get around WP:RS wherever possible, especially WP:FRINGE (especially-especially WP:FRIND). Proponents know that cryptozoologists don't agree on what a "cryptid" is, they know cryptozoology stuff doesn't meet WP:RS because it's by no stretch reliable even for describing what is or is not a "cryptid", and they know reliable sources are out there for anything notable (which I've often provided). But they simply don't like what they say about the pseudoscience. Again, this stuff doesn't yield the excellent SEO the subculture used to enjoy from Wikipedia.

Of course, we can always go back to articles like this rather than allow editors who aim to improve our folklore coverage make them into articles like this. Only time will tell. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Fyunck's behavior deserves some scrutiny here. Bloodofox removed unsourced content which is generally appropriate, especially given recent consensus. Fyunck reinserted the unsourced entries with the edit summary "Wow...". This is blatant disregard for our sourcing policies, and no effort was made to justify the reintroduction of any of these items. I've already found a few that cannot be described as cryptids. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please, anything to make the cryptid pain stop. This has been a tedious recurrent issue at WP:FT/N. I think Rhododendrites's proposal for a double TBAN sounds like it could work. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  You know I didn't open this discussion, I was kindly pinged to come here. Editors have been trying to add sourcing to the article and it has been happening. I added 3 sources earlier today from among those Bloodofox deleted. And I'm not the one with 5 reverts a day. But heck, I could care less about cryptozoology as long as it's a topic treated fairly. If you're putting me in the same boat as Bloodofox I have no problem being topic banned from all crytozoology articles as long as the same happens to Bloodofox. I also have no problem doing it voluntarily as long as it's reciprocated on the other end. I think seeing his conduct towards others was the main reason I stuck around to help out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Rhododenrites' characterization that: Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology. Having done great work on folklore articles, the editor some time ago decided that a) cryptozoology is folklore and nothing but folklore, b) it is Bad Folklore if not covered in the Ulterior Academic Journal of Erudite Mythopoeia and in that case must be removed entirely from Wikipedia, and c) their previous work has given them the authority to bludgeon every cryptozoology topic with outright ownership and generously made-up interpretations of often inapplicable sourcing guidelines. - Sorry, I'm still a bit raw here; I've unwatched most CZ articles because I couldn't deal with that anymore. The constant insistence that CZ sources may not even be used to demonstrate that a topic falls into the subject area, and pretending that there is any kind of consensus in that regard (there isn't), finally did me in. See the more detailed account given above by Rhododendrites.

At the same time, the unsourced addition of crypto stuff is a complete pain, and so is the attempt to validate factual CZ claims with breathless sighting accounts, navel-gazing blogs, and the entire shebang of dodgy sources that flourishes in that ecosystem. Those need to be patrolled and headed off because they actively damage our credibility. What is not desirable is the status quo of that necessary vigilance coming packaged, on part of one highly active editor, with a barely restrained zeal to see the entire subject area razed and salted, saving the bits that have been treated in a monograph on the comparative iconology of the Ishtar gate.

Instead of topic bans, I think it would be much preferable to once and for all establish clear guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable sourcing for a given type of claim about a cryptozoology topic. Previous attempts to start an RfC in that regard were rebuffed because "that's all covered already". Well, it clearly isn't. Let's get that RfC going, and then we can all get behind a unified approach to cleaning up cryptozoology articles on WP and keeping them clean. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that will work, we had an RFC which (In effect) said (after some clarification) that we could use a certain sources, and Bloodfox has refused to accept the clarification, and rather used his interpretation of the RFC closure.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Slater, the RfC made no such establishment, as the users commenting made clear (a thread that in fact did not include comments from yours truly). The "certain" source you're referring to is specifically a book by cryptozoologist George Eberhart.

Elimidae, while I strongly disagree with your assessment, I agree that a proper RfC on sourcing on this article would in fact potentially go a long way at this point. With our without me, this stuff will simply continue to rear its head in some form or another unless we get this policy and guideline disagreement hashed out. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites solution may be the best, whilst I am not wholly sure the Fyunck is as big an issue as bloodofox his reinstating of Cryptid was an issue that may indicate they may not be able to see this subject in a neutral way. As to adding back non sourced content, so-me of it was sourced when it was removed, and it was such a huge removal it is unnecessarily hard to find which one should have been removed vs the ones that are borderline. As I said on the talk page remove one at a time, some may well be cryptids (and indeed I did find a couple of sources that used the term Cryptid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Rhododendrites comments. Bloodofox has been on what could be easily described as a crusade for a long time against anything cryptid-related (I would topic ban both from the topic 'cryptids' broadly) feel free to search the archives at the fringe noticeboard. While there are undoubtedly issues with the area, Bloodofox has given the impression they wont be happy until anything cryptid related is gone. That may not be the case, but its certainly the impression they left me, and their methodology in dealing with the various articles? 'bludgeoning' is too soft a word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that Rhodo and Slater have been closely involved in all this for quite some time, exactly what would such a "topic ban" include? You do realize this stuff is all over Wikipedia's coverage entities from the folklore record, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Rhododendrites suggestion as well. I agree with the topic ban suggestion, especially for Bloodofox. The scenario at FTN seems difficult to followup. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No clear connection to this thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is all getting a bit weired [[210]], made weirder by the fact Bloodfox had in fact logged out between 15:54 and 16:11. This casues me some little concern.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC) What on earth has that got to do with anything? and how do you know? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Because a different IP made an edit between his last two edits here[[211]][[212]][[213]], which was an alteration of a post he made. This was then undone and he loged in an redid the alteration. Moreover the edit to Fyunck's talk page by the IP (a different IP) is a cut and paste of one bloodfox made. Now this means either someone is masquerading as bloodfox, or bloodfox is socking (as he denies explicitly the IP was him). ‎Either way this is clearly linked to this topic [[214]], as it discuses the list. Someone is playing silly bugger.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC) So you don't know then, yes? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC) No, which is why I have raised it here so that those who have the ability can check what is going on.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Slater, if you think I'm sockpuppeting, take it to the Checkusers. You know the drill. I'm obviously not—the IPs don't even match—and I don't see how you can make that accusation from the diffs. That said, I was indeed somehow logged out, which is particularly odd because I was obviously attempting to respond to discussion here. It seems this was some kind of site issue or something, but could someone please delete the diff with my IP? I would prefer not to get more threats mentioning wherever I might be that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC) @Bloodofox: I've suppressed your IP address because you were inadvertently logged out. @Slatersteven: If you happen to have made a note of the IP address, please don't post it again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, HJ. I appreciate that swift response. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC) I made no note of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Another IP restoring bloodfox's post to Fyunck's talk page, and then posting some slander against Fyunck. -- Scott (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC) I could be wrong, but this anon IP looks to be the same one who did this before to my talk page back in January and February of 2018. The many sockpuppets of User:Bjoergenbestever. So it might be unrelated to this topic, maybe a coincidence and more tennis-related. Just an FYI, but it's the exact same MO. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Though Bloodofox can be snarky, they are one of our more diligent editors for keeping cryptid-related articles compliant with policy. I think any topic ban on the subject would be a net-negative for the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Close this circus this is an content dispute plain and simple. Regulars from the Fringe Noticeboard are doing what we often do - and demanding rigorous application of WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:RS. There are other editors who put a lot of effort into building this list and, while their passion is commendable, it's a terrible list based, in part, on the fact that "cryptid" is such a poorly defined term that it's next to impossible to create a reliable list of things that fall within the category. Are they animals? Plants? Organisms? Entities? There's no clear boundaries to the category. I mean, one of the entries was for an extinct subspecies of a well-known apex predator. These sorts of conflicts often lead to flaring tempers and Bloodofox is not always the most diplomatic editor. But when you've been through the WP:FRINGE dance on enough of these tedious articles, it's easy to become a bit... short. Suggest we just close this up for the distraction it is and work on making this list a little bit less awful by rigorous application of WP:RS and a willingness to cut the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As a not-quite-yet involved editor who has been watching the article for a while, I support Simonm223's suggestion. - Donald Albury 23:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If you would like to argue that bloodofox's behavior has been fine or that the quality of his content work gives him a pass on behavior, that's one thing, but this is definitely not a content dispute. Getting into the definition of a cryptid and the validity of that term is making it about the content dispute. I've dealt with all manner of creation scientist, conspiracy theorist, climate change denier, etc. to know the frustration of dealing with that sort. Bloodofox isn't just "fighting the good fight" such that a wave to WP:FRINGE is sufficient to shut down this thread. It's a single goofy list I've proposed a tban on, not cryptozoology wholesale (someone else can propose that if they want, but this is the only place I've observed such problems). Would you really claim that bloodofox is not approaching this list with a textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a content issue but behavioural complaints, as should be clear from all the comments above. If this were to be closed based on the always-snappy, generally-facile, frequently-wrong "content issue" grounds, we would go straight back to the current enjoyable status quo. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• 

  Colossal Octopus is watching you

  Comment. While trying to build my own educated opinion about this controversy, I have encountered the following sentence Unfortunately for Montfort, the British knew what had happened to the ships, resulting in a disgraceful revelation for Montfort in the Pierre Denys de Montfort article. Don't say that this is a simple content controversy, because this shamefully sounds as "British people were allowed to know, but other people not". Such an island-centered formulation should not stay in an inclusive encyclopedia, as could be backed by part of the usual letter soup. Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this grotesquely beside-the-point comment on an extremely minor phrasing issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Unarchived as unresolved with proposed resolutions. Seems like additional opinions would be useful, but otherwise some sort of closure would be appreciated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. As a Christmas present for the new Committee I might turn this thread into a request for arbitration. Yes, there’s a content dispute, but the usual set of disruptive behaviors seems to thwart proper resolution. The answer is to apply strict sourcing to weed out any dubious content. This should be done thoughtfully with effort to find sources before whacking content that’s unsourced. Do we all want to proceed that way, or should I move it to arbitration? The length of this thread already demonstrates that this venue isn’t your solution. You can go back to the articles talk pages and play nice, or we can go to wikicourt. Thoughts? Bishzilla? Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside the peculiarly blustering and officious tone of this interjection (?), if you feel that arbitration is the way to go, knock yourself out. I doubt that's going to meet with much love from the arbs though; we are nowhere near exhausting less drastic measures. - If no further comments appear, I would also appreciate a more formal admin closure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 played Jehochman, that was about as tendentious a closure as one can get away with without directly running afoul of obvious neutrality issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. See also here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Macedonoan

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

---

Macedonoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account was created a few days ago and since then has been making disruptive edits. Has already a block in their log and several warnings on the talk page. Could an admin have a look? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This was the dealbreaker for me. I blocked indef, we have either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR or likely both. And in this area we have plenty on nationalist editors, so that we are not going to lose anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits in the "this" string; if your edits deserve an immediate indefinite block (with which I agree), they definitely shouldn't remain in the current revision. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I somehow overlooked the fact the edits were not reverted. Thanks for doing that.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention @Ymblanter and Nyttend:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Winged Blades of Godric is personally attacking by putting afd on the pages that i created without any research and adding afd tag rapidly. You can find our discussion here [215] after that he started to tag afd on the pages that i created and as i suspect he will tag more. My humble request is to block and revoked his NPR as he is missusing his power. Regards, Azkord (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Revoking NPR and blocking simultaneously will be a bit difficult for a single admin. Can you put that chronologically (block, then revoke or revoke, then block? ) Cheers! ∯WBG^converse 15:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I request him to follow the article not to be personal as you can clearly find here [216]. He is changing his afd reason again and again when i use to add more references of National medias. Editors like WBG should be punished. Azkord (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything wrong here - Those that WBG nominated are all upcoming films where the sources are next to nothing, He's also nominated with indepth policy-based reasons, Whilst I can appreciate it's frustrating to create things only for them to be deleted we delete based on many factors one of them being notability (or lack of), As I said I'm not seeing anything remotely wrong here. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• Azkord, where did he attack you? Nominating articles for deletion is not a personal attack against the creator of the article. ~ GB fan 16:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• GB Fan it looks like that after told me that than he started for afd. I know anyone can tag afd but that was not appropriate. If he hasn't done anything close the case here. Regards, Azkord (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Azkord, I am not following what you are saying. What was not appropriate? I don't know that he hasn't done anything, the only thing you seem to be concerned about is that he nominated articles that you created for deletion. Is there anything else that you are concerned about? ~ GB fan 18:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the AfD and find that Winged Blades of Godric is exercising remarkable restraint. Azkord, not all subjects are notable, and biographies of marginally notable living people pose particular problems for us. UninvitedCompany 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not concerned about nominating the article only. He asserts Nepalese article to Indian delete discussions which was totally wrong. I asked him don't do like that than he started being personal and started to put afd. I have provided the link above take a look. Azkord (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The closest thing I can find to anything personal directed at Azkord from WBG is the comment "Go, write some quality-articles", which is a bit snippy, but which I can totally empathize with, given Azkord's apparent inability to understand notability requirements, and their propensity for taking everything WBG says as an ethnic/nationalistic slur, which they come nowhere close to being.
  This entire complaint is a non-starter, and Azkord, specifically, should stop their WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and allow the AfD to run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 from Weeb Dingle

The following discussion is closed. 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, a couple of days ago, I reverted an edit to Infidelity by Weeb Dingle for being uncited. I actually looked for a ref, but came up empty-handed. Weeb Dingle commented Being an editor consists of MUCH more than doing mindless reverts and deletions ... I pointed out that this wasn't very civil and dropped out of the discussion. Apparently, WD was offended that I hadn't dug through the article history far enough to realise that this was old uncited material rather than new uncited material. Whatever. Anyway, after this happened another editor pointed out to me that Weeb Dingle had taken it to his user page, calling me "useless", "someone who has bafflingly been able to gain editing powers", an "idiot" and a "dingus". I hate dragging stuff to ANI, but I think this needs attention. PepperBeast (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: you need to notify him. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I did! PepperBeast (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I saw the exchanges between Weeb Dingle and Pepperbeast, seeing as those articles are on my watchlist. Weeb Dingle is clearly speaking of Pepperbeast, in part, on his user page. His user page currently violates WP:POLEMIC. The user page doesn't need to mention Pepperbeast by name to violate WP:POLEMIC. From what I've seen of Weeb Dingle, he becomes overly defensive when reverted or challenged on his views and is quick to resort to personal attacks. See the thread I started on him in November: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#User:Weeb Dingle and accusations of WP:Hounding. Thankfully, Doc James stepped in and warned him. Doc also recently warned Weeb Dingle about his current user page. Just like last time, Weeb Dingle has not apologized or shown any acknowledgement of wrongdoing and has ignored the ANI report. Other than an uninvolved editor removing the text from his user page about Pepperbeast, I'm not sure what should be done in this case since Doc has warned him again and has asked him to remove it, but Weeb Dingle is not the most collaborative editor. I have to tiptoe around him, like I recently did here and here, for "fear" (annoyance, really) that he will accuse me of stalking him and/or comment with some original research analysis about why he is right. It's not uncommon to see him going to article talk pages with complaints that are based on his personal opinions about the topic rather than what sources state or may state. See his commentary here about "non-marital sex" being a better term than "premarital sex," and here about what is a better term/concept for "love-hate relationship." If I pointed him to WP:Common name, I doubt it would matter much to him, if at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA of blocked IP Range

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

---

Someone on this blocked IP range has been doing nothing but spamming various IP user talk pages with pointless edits. Should talk page access be revoked? EclipseDude (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Kennyalley spamming Wikidata

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

---

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

Despite being alerted of this discussion by another contributor, Kennyalley has continued to spam wikidata infoboxes across many articles and have accused me of being deceptive here, before removing the discussion altogether. I'm not sure what should be done, which is why I have brought it here. IWI (chat) 00:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: That explains a lot. IWI (chat) 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to take action on this user. IWI (chat) 12:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not a sockpuppet according to a CheckUser. IWI (chat) 12:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This user is still edit warring over this; could an admin please help? IWI (chat) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was about to block the user since they continue to revert and to insert Wikidata-drawn infoboxes, but then I went to their talk page and saw that they make a valid point: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC was actually closed as no consensus, and the common ground was that data imported from Wikidata must be reliable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. I am going to pull out of this discussion before it becomes one more Wikidata battleground, but let me say that (1) the first question to be investigated must be whether the edits by Kennyalley comply with our notability requirements, and so far I do not see a meaningful discussion of this issue, though I might have missed something; (2) if we are talking about behavioral issues, which we possibly might be talking about, the behavior of both parties here is clearly confrontational. If you guys tone down a bit and try to discuss the edits quietly something might come out of it. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I put a comment on his talk page and he deleted it after copying my comment. He refuses to discuss. IWI (chat) 13:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

They are also inserting copyrighted images everywhere as well. IWI (chat) 13:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the copyrighted images, as far as I can see, they are adding the images as fair use, and, whereas they initially did not understand that the size of fair-use uploads is limited, everything else seems fine to me: They upload images to illustrate articles, and they fill in the fair-use template. Concerning their refusal to discuss the problem with Wikidata infoboxes (whether this is spamming or not), this is indeed an issue, and some discussion should happen somewhere at some point. However, I as a user have a strong opinion concerning the Wikidata usage here, and I do not feel now I should be the administrator leading this discussion. I hope someone else can get interested.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This for example is a revert of my revert, note also how they copied my edit summary. IWI (chat) 20:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And here they completely ignored an in-page warning not to change it to an infobox. IWI (chat) 21:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Also, what an excellent admin. I can’t even tell what your POV is. IWI (chat) 21:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading through this ANI and Ymblanter's comment after his/her investigation of the matter at-hand, I think that what boils down to the bread and butter of things here on Wikipedia is that this is a content-related dispute and a peaceful discussion and consensus needs to happen. I know that ImprovedWikiImprovment has tried multiple times to talk to Kennyalley and ask the user to participate in a discussion and to no avail. I've added a notice to Kennyalley's user talk page regarding edit warring and also notified him/her of this ANI discussion (I searched through the edit history of Kennyalley's user talk page and didn't find that this was done, so I did so). Details and information on Wikidata that are under dispute should probably be resolved there, since that is the project that is involved directly (I'm not familiar with their overall guidelines and policies regarding sources and the addition of information there, so I could be wrong here). However, the addition of information to articles on this project (even if it's from Wikidata) should be cited by a reliable source. I don't see information or content as accurate simply because it's from Wikidata (again, please correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm missing something here). In the end, Content-related issues and disputes need to be discussed and the edit warring policies respected. Users who engage in edit warring and refuse to discuss matters can be blocked. If the edits continue and no attempts to discuss the matter comes from Kennyalley, I wouldn't be opposed to action being taken to prevent additional disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I’d like to address a mistake in your response: I had notified the user and such notice is still visible on the talk page. IWI (chat) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment - Well.... I'm obviously an idiot then... lol. I apologize; I didn't see the notification when I looked, and the notice I added wasn't meant to imply anything toward you or that you didn't do this. I just wanted to add a notification in case it wasn't done. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah and DGG: I wasn’t suggesting that of course :). On another note it is clear they are still edit warring, ignoring your warning as well now. This user isn’t going to stop and it is very harmful IMO. A lot of the information in these infoboxes is unsourced. IWI (chat) 14:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

They’ve also accused me of meatpuppetry, simply because I have the same objection as another editor, which is the third PA they have made. IWI (chat) 14:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a comment to that discussion and asked the user to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ImprovedWikiImprovment - The edits after the changes I warned the user for edit warring over seem to mostly add sections and make other small changes. There's one edit here made by this user just moments ago that adds an infobox, but it doesn't look to be pulling anything from Wikidata, and the information appears to be pulled from content within the same article that's referenced. Can you verify for sure that this user is continuing this very trend and after the edits they made to Allegory of Wealth at 09:59, 29 December 2018 (which I warned them for)? We don't want to jump to any administrative actions and for edits that don't violate policy or were made before warnings that the user received afterwards. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well, this edit (made 30 minutes after he replied to your warning and several hours after you posted it) adds a wikidata infobox back that I removed earlier, blatant edit warring. For now, that’s the only one although I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t do it again. IWI (chat) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn’t warn him for that edit is what I’m trying to say. IWI (chat) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've remedied this with the action I described below. This is the appropriate path to take that will resolve this matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The actual summary from that RfC was "There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus." I would interpret that "might" to indicate that discussion is required individually, with every use justified, and if challenged, not restored without consensus, and especially that mass insertions without prior consensus are disruptive since they prevent proper consideration. Consensus may change in the future of course, whether WP-wide or in specific areas. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, DGG, thank you both for supplying some context. I have just reverted Kennyalley on Anna Anni, because I find their dictum, "the infobox includes reliable sourced statements from wikidata, and an image. please do not revert without a clear consensus", to be unreasonable. It is also high time that the editor starts responding here: these are legitimate concerns. (And while we're on the topic, I think it is also high time that User:ImprovedWikiImprovment leave this matter be--I don't see that much good has come out of their involvement.) The larger matter, of what to do with Wikidata, that's another question, but let it be clear that there is, as far as I know, no mandate that allows users to just fetch Wikidata and drop them in here. Plus, simply adding infoboxes all over the place also strikes me as something that shouldn't just happen without discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies, Oshwah, and DGG: Well we wouldn’t be talking about it if I hadn’t have got involved since I brought the matter here. I’ve spoken in a civil manner to the user and I don’t see how I’ve worsened the issue. IWI (chat) 14:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - I just added AC/DS alerts to Kennyalley's user talk page regarding edits made to BLP articles and edits made to the infoboxes of articles, and followed up with a detailed warning regarding this user's behavior. The diff is here. If they fail to discuss the matters at-hand and if disruption continues - the user will be sanctioned and banned from editing infoboxes or linking infoboxes to Wikidata without prior consensus first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Shoot, User:Oshwah, we have DS for infoboxes too now? See what happens if I leave the room for a few minutes... Thanks for that. I do think that there are problem here, though apparently Bbb23 couldn't shed any more light on the matter. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Sadly, we do... but for good reasons (obviously). I agree: there are serious issues here and I feel that going down this pathway is the right thing to do - especially given Kennyalley's lack of participation in both talk page discussions and this ANI. I hope things don't have to come down to having to apply sanctions to this user, but the ball's in his/her court now... either things improve in these areas or sanctions will be applied. What happens is ultimately up to Kennyalley... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is appropriate action. IWI (chat) 16:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• An SPI was started over this user, suggesting that they were User:Slowking4, which was rejected as the geographical data was different. However, it's become fairly clear that this is Slowking4.

• First of all, the username - if you look at Slowking4's other socks, they have pseudo-rhyming names such as "QuincyChincy", "Grantant", "Burkejurk", "Hoyabeetya", "Lortonsorton", and so on.
• The editing pattern is identical. Uploading "non-free historical portraits" to biographies.
• Their communication is completely identical. Look at their talkpage posts - a colon followed by a non-capitalised sentence. Slowking - [217] [218] [219] [220] etc. Kennyalley - [221] [222] [223] [224] etc.
• General unpleasantness and abuse levelled at anyone who disagrees with them.

• Given this, I have blocked Kennyalley indefinitely as a sock. Any of their contributions may therefore be rolled back and/or deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite! Thanks for the response, your input, and your actions taken here. I've added this information into the SPI report and I'll have it wrapped up and closed shortly. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you everyone for your help. IWI (chat) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have mass rolled back all top edits, anddeleted all their new pages/images. Please check any remaining material that may be at odds with our policies/guidelines/consensus.

When I filed the SPI I was rather sure it was the same editor, but not sure enough. Their behaviour now wraps it up. Don't worry, they'll be back in a day or three. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the edits made by this user that should be reverted have been. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Charges of Nazism by an 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.

---

I've got an editor who's determined to keep comparing me and/or the editors of Daniel (biblical figure) in general to the Nazis.

Here's the first diff (it's at the end of the long comment): [225].

Here's the first diff of me explaining to the user that WP:CIVIL doesn't allow that kind of thing: [226]

Here's the second diff of the user invoking Godwin's law, doubling down on the rhetoric quite a bit: [227]

Here's me warning the user a second time: [228].

Here's the user doing it again, directly using the word "Nazi" and, even worse, capitalizing the whole word: [229].

Here's me warning the user a third time: [230]

And … here's some more. It doesn't mention Nazis directly, but continues in the same vein as previous comments, alluding to various persecutors of Jews [231]. Alephb (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This latest cryptic and potentially menacing comment is probably worth considering, though I can't quite make out what the user is up to with this one: [232].Alephb (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an IP on a mission, I reverted the last set of changes with a request to use the talk page politely. These sort of things tend to blow over ....-----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Are his objections accurate? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:99C:7D5A:7EF6:4F2F (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss that on the talk cygnis insignis 07:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Alephb, "dare to be a Daniel", the user have a point in the midst of that tract on systematic bias. Giving them a pass on this outburst would be a very generous (seasonal, and non-Nazi) thing to do and some refinements may emerge as a consequence. cygnis insignis 07:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the IP says in one of their edit summaries: "Non-Jews cannot decide for the Jews what Daniel is in Judaism." [233]. This is very similar to what they posted on Talk:Gab (social network):

  Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For

  Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Wikipedia page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Wikipedia page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Wikipedia page, would it? [234]

  Off hand, I'd say that this editor is more interested in polemically pushing their personal POVs than they are in calm discussion to determine "refinements". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps not, that is up to them and I have no expectations. I see a potentially divisive and noisy situation and recognise that refinements to content can often emerge, despite anyone pushing one POV or editing to make a point (which is worse, especially in regard to freeze peach), improvements via NPOV properly applied ought to make that content less susceptible to drive-by criticism. On other the other hand, indulging those actions is liable to cause blowback, but a block and perhaps this thread may energise any co-ordinated disruption. This is interesting, as you point out, and others may have developed effective counters; I am venturing in without a simple solution to what may be master-level trolling. Or maybe it is one of our cousins who is woefully misguided and only has a superficial point to prosecute, this is the mood I was in when the thread popped, disrupt the disruptors. cygnis insignis 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Please let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you know. Alephb (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "freeze peach"? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• A spoonerism of free speech, generally used to criticise those who're invoking it as a defence of their actions. As XKCD says, it's basically conceding you have no actual defence of your position. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, I thought the editor might be using a speech to text gizmo :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Freeze peaches. EEng 16:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

2601:143:4200:700 range

The following discussion is closed. 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 guess this is the reincarnation of the 2601:191:8402:5F89::/64 range blocked for three months according to the request: User:2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26.

Edit warring:

• [235], [236]
• [237], [238]
• [239], [240]

Personal attacks: stop with your childish rant Nicoljaus

And so on--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP addresses involved in the diffs provided are:

• 2601:143:4200:700:C15C:3B44:FD5F:22ED
• 2601:143:4200:700:C0C8:56C1:3F27:EDA7
• 2601:143:4200:700:947:23FB:FF97:5EE3
• 2601:143:4200:700:6C67:A7BA:217A:7A61

...Or 2601:143:4200:700::/64

The IP range is from the same ISP, ASN, and geo-location as the IPv6 range in the previous ANI discussion linked here. Hence, I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range for three months for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicoljaus - You bet! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

SPA pushing apparent hoax over the last four months

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

---

Nahuel Montenegro (talk · contribs)

This Reddit discussion appears to indicate that the "Josh Blaylock will be appearing in Spider-Man: Far from Home" is not even a rumour but rather something that has appeared on several Wikipedia articles for a combined total of probably several days.

I would discuss it with the editor and ask them to please provide sources, but given that they don't appear to have done anything else on the project, it looks very much like they're only here to push a hoax. Might as well block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Socks on the Reference Desks

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

---

Redlink editor User:Doroletho has just admitted to sock pupping on the Reference Desks here. Can an admin block? No checkuser needed since he's quacking so loudly. Thanks. 138.97.116.190 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

First, please note that there is no such thing as a "redlink editor". No account is required to create a user page. Second, please note that sockpuppetry is not just the creation or use of multiple accounts. It is the creation or use of multiple accounts "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies". You have provided no evidence that this editor has done any of these things. General Ization ^Talk 13:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I note, however, that a) Doroletho has been involved in a discussion of problematic editing by another editor, and b) this IP, which seems to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia terminology, has apparently not been used for any purpose but to file this report at AN/I. What are the chances that a checkuser would find this IP associated with a registered account that has been the subject of this discussion? General Ization ^Talk 13:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's also not forget the details about WP:SOCK:

"generally expected"

"Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts", " avoid any crossover" which is pretty much my case.

There's Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses Especially due to privacy issues, linking accounts is sometimes not feasible.

Anyway, no account of mine was banned, blocked or even accused of troll-ish behaviour. I have also lost the login data for some accounts, so I just abandoned them. Doroletho (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:2600:1:f33e:4120:94c6:3080:9f9c:bf15 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. 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 just made edits on Fox-owned stations and other articles that refer to 21st Century Fox as just Fox. These edits may not be sourced (no recent news stories), and the merger hasn't even closed yet (Disney still have to sell the RSNs)! Should all these edits be reverted? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The deal has not yet gone through so the IP is jumping the gun, so to speak. Some editors think they possess a crystal ball. Feel to revert but please be aware that this noticeboard is not for discussing routine content disputes, Mvcg66b3r. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violations by Spasage and JogiAsad

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

---

Both Spasage[241] and JogiAsad[242] are topic banned for an indefinite period from AfD or any deletion discussions.

Spasage violated this topic ban just now,[243] and same with JogiAsad.[244][245]

I thought of asking them to self-revert but saw that they have been already warned enough times for their violations before.[246][247] JogiAsad in fact appealed this topic ban 2 or 3 times and failed.[248][249] Orientls (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given both editors one week blocks for violating their topic bans. Thank you for presenting the evidence concisely and persuasively, Orientls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Film Fan and site-ban evasion

The following discussion is closed. 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. In August, Film Fan was site banned for continued disruptive behaviour. This is all linked to either edit wars on film posters, or edit wars on page moves. Yesterday, the IP 213.205.242.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped-up to start a page move discussion on a semi-obscure Mexican film, which FF had previously edited. Editing the article with this edit summary mirrors previous edits by FF, such as this, and their move request cites WP:COMMONNAME, again similar to an edit by FF, also on a semi-obscure Mexican film.

I also fail to believe that a new user would suddenly appear and know about the RM process and one of WP's policies about naming articles. I also believe that the IP 90.249.17.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor, as that was editing in a similar niche area, and was blocked for 7 days (CheckUser block) by @NinjaRobotPirate:. I would take this to SPI, but that has quite a big backlog, and FF does have form for socking, so hopefully this can be looked at sooner rather than later. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 mistake

The following discussion is closed. 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 here requesting for an urgent unblock of my account, 627544editor. A CheckUser mistakenly identified it as a sock and blocked it, but I only have one account and never vandalized. 183.192.63.128 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

627544editor (talk · contribs) to save a little time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am confused. 183.192.63.128 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The template that MarnetteD added makes it easier for people to access your contributions page, talk page, etc. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you are considering to unblock the account? And you have to look at my contribs to decide? 183.192.63.128 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to checkuser data, which I'd need to comment on the block. The fact that huge chunks of User:627544editor were oversighted doesn't leave me very optimistic about an unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate edits at MOS:TV

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

---

The talk page of MOS:TV includes the banner {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} which warns that discretionary sanctions are applicable to the page. Four days ago BarbadosKen made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America?. Only two days later, with no discussion and certainly no consensus, he changed the MOS with the edit summary "Adding a proposal that did not attract opposition in talk page". Naturally I reverted those changes,[250] noting it was only two days and there was no consensus. Today, only two days after that, I was reverted, with the claim "Discussion has now been open for 4 days, and to quote from WP:SILENCE, "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement", this despite the fact that the previous reversion is a clear indication of disagreement. After a bit of back and forth on the talk page, and with some harassment on my talk page, I was happy to let the discussion run its course (I have other things on my plate - my wife is in hospital with a poor prognosis) until this post in which BarbadosKen threatens I see that you consider the discussion closed without answering my question as to how long you think a discussion should remain open (I actually did answer his question) I will therefore arbitrarily set the time at 1 week, upon which I will revert your reversion if no opposition is provided in the MOS talk page. At that point, if you revert me again, I will file a complaint against you. The changes to the MOS are not big, but they are changes without discussion or consensus, and the talk page indicates that discretionary sanctions apply so I thought I should bring it here earlier than later, hoping someone could politely inform BarbadosKen of the correct process for changing the MOS. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The first uninvolved editor's note there is a good point: it's kind of annoying to revert someone without providing a reason why you disagree with the edit. You reverted the "bold" edit, fine – but now you aren't discussing. Look at this from Ken's point of view: it is impossible to make a change because nobody else cares about the change. Wha? Also if I were you I would not revert that edit again, considering the discretionary sanctions. You're pushing it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I did provide an explanation as to why I reverted, and linked to that above. I said in my edit summary "Only under discussion for two days. More importantly, changes to the MOS need WP:CONSENSUS, not "no opposition". Then while I posted on the MOS talk page today he kept asking questions on my talk page that I was answering on the MOS talk page, which is why I asked him to keep the conversation on the MOS talk page, which he just didn't want to do. I've clearly explained why I reverted, it was procedural, but he doesn't want to accept that. I've said that more discussion by other editors is necessary and that's really all I need to say at this point about the reversion. What more is necessary?

Also if I were you I would not revert that edit again, considering the discretionary sanctions. You're pushing it. - And he's not by pushing edits that have no discussion and no consensus into the Manual of Style? Is that an OK thing to do now? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Your point is that BarbadosKen shouldn't have restored his change because your previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change he was making. Why, then, was it appropriate for you to revert him in the first place, since his previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change you were making? Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

BarbadosKen made a change to the MOS that had been the subject of ZERO discussion beyond his propoasl and which certainly had no consensus. It's entirely appropriate to revert such a change.

since his previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change you were making? - This confuses me because I had made no change. He was the one who made the change.[251] The last change I made to the MOS was back in 2017. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Deeply aggressive 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.

---

This comment seems to be deeply insulting. I checked what does svinosobaki means: in Russian (or Ukrainian), it means literally "swine-hounds" (or "pig-dogs"). I think this aggressive IP should be blocked and all its comments removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

They made one objectionable edit on that page? Unless there are more blocking is overkill. WP:DENY. First we try “don’t fight with them” and hope they don’t fight with us. Blocking can stimulate a troll. They seem to have made a few edits and quit six hours ago. If they come back with more of the same they could be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "objectionable" is an adequate word in that case. The IP (i) insulted other users, (ii) made a broad claim about a whole nation, (iii) accused other users of working for KGB. Usually, that is quite sufficient for a permanent ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue is how to minimize disruption. I strongly recommend ignoring them. If they continue to disrupt the conversation we can try to slow them down with blocks and semi-protection, but often this just energized the troll and leads to more trouble than ignoring them. Jehochman ^Talk 05:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: You need to ping the IP about this discussion with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, otherwise this discussion is invalid. -INeedSupport- ^{(Time for Christmas!)} 16:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t you please listen before you speak because you are giving terrible advice. Go read WP:DENY and WP:BURO. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Oh. Sorry then. At least I didn't warn the IP. -INeedSupport- ^{(Time for Christmas!)} 17:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a pretty obvious troll, all of their contributions are trolling, which includes posting in Ukrainian on a talk page of an English native speaker and summarily accusing all editors who object renaming Kiev to Kyiv in being paid Russian agents. I gave them a warning a couple of days ago, and I suspect they never come back. If they continue trolling, and, in particular, in such a sensitive topic as Russian-Ukrainian relations, they must be immediately blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. If any trolling, incivility, or personal attacks continue, the IP should be temporarily blocked from editing just like anybody else would be. However, since the IP user hasn't made any additional edits since 18:48, 23 December 2018, we can't take action now; doing so would serve absolutely no purpose. If disruption continues, it should be reported to AIV or you can let myself know and I'll be happy to step in (just message me on my user talk page and link me to this discussion so that I'm reminded about this issue). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 by User:BostonBowTie

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

---

• BostonBowTie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• United States administrative law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My apologies if I'm skipping steps here - in over a decade of Wikipedia editing, it's been years since I escalated a civility complaint. But this user is quite aggressive and downright mean even by the standards of Wikipedia. I formally warned the user a few days ago [252], after previously pointing them to WP:CONDUCT back in April. They responded with "Contempt has to be earned ... Your actions (at Talk:United States administrative law) earned it" and calling me a liar on the basis that a "false statement on a fully-informed basis supports in inference of intentional lying". Not particularly interested in feeding that. More below.

I first encountered BostonBowTie (talk · contribs) around April 2018 - their 4th edit ever called me a hyper-pedantic ignoramus. (Most likely they were the IP for the earlier edit, calling me a "shit-for-brains [vandal]".) I pointed WP:CONDUCT to them at Talk:United_States_administrative_law#Hortatory,_instructional,_and_nonbinding. I let it lie for around 8 months; when I came back in December a few days ago, their first response in above discussion included statements such as "[your edits] ... [prove] the further suspicion that you’re an intentional troll", with edit summaries like [253] (calling me a "barbarian vandal"). Another long-term editor who barely dipped their toes into the discussion was called (on a completely unfounded basis) various names such as "ignoramus", "nincompoop", "nitwit", with "excrescence" edits [254]. And a quick look at their other edits shows that it doesn't just seem to be us - the user is also damaging the maturity of discussions at Common law, where they called repeatedly insisted on calling another long-term editor a troll even after being asked to stop [255].

I can take quite a bit of abuse, but it does discourage me. Moreover, I'm concerned by the long-term effects and downward spiral.

The underlying content dispute centers around how to best describe the nuance of agency guidance (often described as "nonbinding" but also "hortatory", recommended or requested) versus formal, legally binding rules. II | (t - c) 04:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of hortatory it might be more encyclopedic to say bordello or house of ill repute. EEng 09:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed doesn’t like the word “hortatory.” Courts do. The sentence in the article is “Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only ‘hortatory’.” ImperfectlyInformed doesn’t like the word, so he changed the quote. I’ve asked him to give a good faith explanation; none has been given. ImperfectlyInformed commented that use of the word wasn’t clear to him. OK, fair enough. But it’s still the language that the courts use, and changing the quote is out of bounds. Nonetheless, the initial question was a fair one. If someone doesn't understand, I can work with that and explain more. So I added a lot of text to explain exactly what that means. Many federal rules are not on a black-white binding-nonbinding dichotomy. For one large class of rules, it’s a spectrum through shades of grey, that varies with context. There are now over 1000 words, including United_States_administrative_law#Consequence_of_the_Interpretative_Exemption explaining the sense in which certain rules are binding, when they’re not, what degree of effect that agencies can rely on, what the public may expect of the agency. At ImperfectlyInformed's prompting, the article now explains exactly what all the rights are, and what the courts’ choice of the word “hortatory” means.

I spent enough time in academia that I’m happy to teach. I’ve invited ImperfectlyInformed to ask questions that reflect that he read the existing text first, and thought about it, and you bet, I’ll see what I can do to make things clearer for nonspecialists. I’ve spent a good deal of effort trying to meet ImperfectlyInformed’s questions (and, for that matter, White_Whirlwind’s).

Instead of that, he comes back and edits again, to change a direct, correct quote to an incorrect quote.[256]. ImperfectlyInformed deletes stuff just because he doesn’t understand it--normal Wikiettiquette is to add a “clarify” tag or ask a question on the Talk page. ImperfectlyInformed's conversation on the Talk page suggests that he's not reading, or at least not reading carefully enough to engage with the facts that are under his nose.

ImperfectlyInformed' writes “I still think that the article … does not communicate at all the ‘shades of grey’ which you point towards.” That’s OK. Lack of understanding doesn’t make a bad person. Deleting parts of an article, with the explanation of personal lack of understanding--that’s a bit more problematic.

ImperfectlyInformed mentions of my conversation with White_Whirlwind, but neglects a number of key facts. ImperfectlyInformed overlooks the key sentences in my conversation with WhiteWhirlwind. Near the top of the conversation:

You mention “ad hominem“ attacks. Please look again. ... Every declarative sentence involving “you” refers to an objective act that you took. Those acts could lead a reasonable person to question your cognitive abilities, but that’s entirely your inference from your acts, not an ad hominem attack from me.

I think the full transcript is clear. I fully and fairly engaged with WhiteWhirlwind at each stage. WhiteWhirlwind misquoted, evaded, made up rules on the fly, complained about lack of verifiable sources when the text in question is a near-word-for-word direct quote from an article that has been cited by the Supreme Court and fully footnoted, etc. It is only after a long conversation, multiple edits to try to meet WhiteWhirlwind’s concerns and getting nowhere, that we get to this:

Of course I started with the assumption of good faith. But assumptions can be rebutted by evidence.

Your own acts have pretty conclusively rebutted. I am now ready to state that inference in a simple declarative sentence. You’re a troll, and the problems you complain of arise out of your own carelessness.

So yes, I called White_Whirlwind a troll. I think the transcript is clear enough to establish that that's a more-than-fair inference.

I did not call ImperfectlyInformed a liar. I wrote exactly what I wrote—I pointed out that ImperfectlyInformed had changed a direct quote from a cited source. Before ImperfectlyInformed edited, the sentence was a literal, correct quote, that gets several dozen hits in the case law databases. ImperfectlyInformed changed the quote because he objects to the word “hortatory,” to a statment that has exactly zero support (at least no support in any database I can search--I looked in the two free ones, and didn't go to the two pay databases.) It was a point that had been discussed at some length. It was the same misquotation that had been edited in multiple times (to be fair, not all by ImperfectlyInformed), and that I had changed back multiple times. The direct quote is footnoted to one of dozens of possible sources, and I even added a block quote from one of the cases that explains it well. ImperfectlyInformded offers no "reliable source" support. After ImperfectlyInformed edited in the error again, I wrote “a false statement on a fully-informed basis supports in inference of intentional lying.” There is no declarative sentence calling ImperfectlyInformed a liar. There is a sentence that presents ImperfectlyInformed with his own action, and suggests that his own pattern of action might create an inference he wishes to avoid by changing behavior in the future.

ImperfectlyInformed writes “it does discourage me.” The right balance is the one I’ve encouraged: read carefully (both the article text, and the footnoted sources), think, ask questions, don’t change quotes. Look at the footnoted sources—perhaps they’d clarify something. But especially after an extended Talk page discussion, don’t edit without understanding. Don’t alter quotes. I don't know how changing quotes is handled in the rest of the Wikipedia world, but in my world, changing a direct quote is lying, and gets real penalties, and I won't accept it. Don't edit when the only explanation ImperfectlyInformed can offer is personal ignorance--questions, yes. Deletes, no. If ImperfectlyInformed raises a question, and the other person (me in this case) makes edits to try to meet those questions, then either take "yes" for an answer, or explain exactly what the remaining problem is (with respect to the new text, not the old) with enough precision to allow further progress. Further Talk discussion that reflect oblivion to responsive edits, to the cited sources, and to previous Talk discussion is, at best, unhelpful. If I’ve discouraged ImperfectlyInformed from acting in haste to disrupt a consensus and an article that reflects some attention from an expert, then I submit that that’s good. On the other hand, if ImperfectlyInformed wants to continue to participate to ask questions and identify things that could be explained better, and do so nondestructively, I’d welcome that.

BostonBowTie (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who's right on the content issue but we certainly have here a stark reminder of why people think of lawyers as overbearing assholes. EEng 14:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for providing a contrast. At least at the high end, law is a culture of precision and correctness. If you know any assembly language programmers who know their stuff will be used in fly-by-wire in passenger airplanes, it's a similar mindset. It's not the right mindset for every field, but it's the only one that works in the law. BostonBowTie (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> I hope you know more about law than you do about computing or avionics. EEng 15:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I probably do. I lectured at MIT on computing in the 1990s. Later I changed careers. Earlier this year I lectured in D.C., in a program where just before me was a panel of heads of several agencies, and I was followed by Senator Hatch and Chief Justice Roberts. So I guess I'm more current on law, but at the top of both. Thank you for asking. BostonBowTie (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lectured at MIT on computing. Uh huh. Let's see... Please answer:

• (1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it?
• (2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they?
• (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles?
• (4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency?

Since your lecturing days are somewhat distant, I'll take 3 out of 4. EEng 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"[T]he only one that works in the law"? You either practice before very different courts or amidst very different lawyers than I do. Or you are [shudder] a legal academic! Either way, I would remind you that brevity is the soul of wit and that if you could simply be slightly more temperate with the same underlying substance, it would go a long way. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What that says to me is "not a practitioner." Have a nice day, and just try to remember that ipse dixit is no way to write an encyclopedia. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, pure practitioner (though old enough now that I get to teach a bit, publish a lot of articles). A lot of my deals were co-sounsel with or against Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Simpson Thacher, WilmerHale, etc. Careful of jumping to conclusions! BostonBowTie (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Have a happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You too. May God bless us all, every one. BostonBowTie (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

2601:82:202:CB17::/64

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

---

• 2601:82:202:CB17::/64 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

Dynamic IP with lots of edits to film-related articles, largely for kids, mostly on Saturdays. Not outright vandalism, but largely unreferenced edits with no edit summaries or communication in response to many warnings. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked six months. It's block evasion by Special:Contributions/73.33.121.170 and Special:Contributions/2601:81:c401:5307::/64. Same geolocation, same edits (1 and 2, 1 and 2). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 of Italian author proposed for rapid deletion for spam reasons, even if all information contained are fully referenced

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

---

For the sake of honesty and justice, and in the interest of the respect of Wikipedia values and rules, I inform you about the fact that the Living Biography author Page of Italian writer has been proposed for rapid deletion for "spam reasons", even if all information contained are fully referenced (more than 40 references to third parties fully reliable and valid sources). The page can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniele_Trevisani The behavior of the User Biogeographist seems that of racial harassment (the author is Italian) or other forms of hate that is not justified by any reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiverave (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Report on disruptive user

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

---

User:Zainkhann15 is constantly removing and adding information on Becky Lynch without any explanation or sources. The user is not having consensus and doing the same kind of edits over and over again. I reverted almost all of them and gave them several warnings yesterday. They were even blocked for 24 hours but they started doing the same things today again after the ban. P.S.:The user also removed my warnings from their talk page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Bbb23. @ImmortalWizard: users are allowed to remove warnings, that's taken as a sign that they've read them and accept the consequences of not heeding them. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 and Ian.thomson thanks for your immediate responses. My apologies for the inconvenience. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Brother Lion

• Brother Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A day or two ago, I found the article Brother Lion, which was written by User:APaoloL. After examining the article Brother Lion, I noticed it was poorly written and not supported by any sources. A quick look through Google found zero evidence backing any such film project existing (the only links that look remotely relevant are those referring to fan-made parody trailer(s) that are obviously not real). Looking closer at the article, the whole thing looked to be an obvious hoax. For example, the article purported that MGM was producing a prequel to a Disney film (unlikely). The article further states that the film is being directed by someone named Antonio Lombardo and that this is the third film directed by Lombardo; however, there does not appear to any director by that name. Unless I am missing something, the whole thing appeared to be a blatant hoax (and not a very good one at that).

Given all of that, and the fact that the same user wrote another article at about the same time that was quickly deleted as a blatant hoax (see Hellcats Of The Navy 2), I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax; administrator User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it a short time later.

However, after Anthony Appleyard deleted the article, APaoloL left a message on Anthony Appleyard's talk page, in which he stated, "Would You Be So Kind To Bring Back The Brother Lion Article Because I'm Making A Prequel To The 2003 Disney Animated Film Brother Bear If You Bring Back The Article You Have A Option. You Can Come To Auditions For Brother Lion." The message seemed highly unpersuasive, but Anthony Appleyard responded by restoring the article and leaving an affirmative response to APaoloL's message. Further, after restoring the article, Appleyard deactivated the speedy tag using nowiki mark-up, along with the edit summary, "Google finds plenty of references" -- which, as I noted earlier, does not appear to be true.

I'm hoping some fresh eyes can look at this to see if I am missing something in all of this. If I am missing something here and the article was restored correctly, I would kindly ask someone to trout me; however, I really don't see any reason why this article should have been restored. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Aoi: Should I re-delete Brother Lion again? OK, sorry, I may have misjudged the Google search result [257]. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I am pretty sure this is a hoax. I probably should've gone to your talk page to ask you about this first (and I sincerely apologize that I didn't), but to be honest, I was actually a little worried your account may have been compromised because I found the chain of edits to be kind of weird (specifically when the page was restored after the editor offered you a part in the movie). However, I can see how one could've assumed good faith with the article's author in restoring the article. Thank you very much for responding. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Aoi and Anthony Appleyard: Might not be an intentional hoax. Hollywood (and elsewhere) is filled with people who are "working on projects", most of which never see the light of day, let alone an audience. I added some pointers and a welcome message to their talk page. We'll see what happens. Is/should someone reviewing/review their other contribs, which seem to be about the future as well? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I see they left a similar message on the talkpage of Premeditated Chaos, asking for undeletion and another offer of an audition.--Auric talk 22:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sadly, I don't think I'm Hollywood material, so I'll have to leave it deleted for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Attack against whole country by R9tgokunks

This user has been systematically deleting any information about Czech Republic and people from this country. Please take a look at his talk page there has been hundreds of such incidents and I am afraid he is actually fighting against Czech Culture here on wikipedia. --EUStudent6 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

EUStudent6, are you aware that making unsupported accusations of disruption is considered a personal attack? You need to provide evidence now if you don't want sanctions. There are demonstrably not hundreds of incidents at his talk page, and unless you can provide plenty of evidence for such sweeping accusations, this will be treated as a WP:BOOMERANG. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, the first thing I see from your contributions is this edit. Are you aware that you restored one of the blogs he removed? So far, I'm seeing two problematic edits by you (your unsupported accusations here and the link I've provided) and zero problematic edits by him. The second interaction I've seen between you two was this edit, which was promptly reverted by a third person. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I am not sure if you can access his whole edit history and the articles he tried to delete. But just looking at the his talk page you can see disproportionate amount of Czech stuff he tried to delete (he even tried to use Speedy deletion, which he was thankfully unable to do in many occasions) - Zdeněk Rejdák, Jan Ignác František Vojta, Josef Antonín Plánický, Pavel Horák (choirmaster), Golden Harmony (Zlatá Harmonie), Budeč (Kladno District) and others.. Also, having one bad source is not a valid reason for deleting the fact that Google uses "Czechia" instead of "Czech Republic" in the section "Adoption of Czechia". --EUStudent6 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend:. I'd like to point out that User:EUStudent6 has been doing this for a while. I warned them about this behavior today, finally, and they went completely the other way. This user has been warned about assuming good faith before, by other users as well.

1. First I removed content I felt did not belong at the respective section at Name of the Czech Republic, including a blog post, which is itself against WP:RS. User:EUStudent6 reverted my edts and called them "vandalism." ([diff: "(partial revert of R9tgokunks vandalism."]) I reverted this edit on the basis that he seemingly re-added the blog and did not assume good faith, also leaving a warning. User:EUStudent6 reverted me again after that, at which point I gave up.

2. It was after this I noticed that User:EUStudent6 left a message at my talk page. The contents of which accused me of having an "Agenda against Czechia" ([diff]), and that I was "systematically deleting source information about the adoption of the word Czechia", bringing up my edit at Name of the Czech Republic. User also claimed that I was "systematically fighting against anything related to Czech Republic."

3. I then proceeded to explain to user how this behavior in all was unacceptable and was against WP:AGF and WP:ETIQUETTE, etc, and how WP:COMMONNAME and many discussions at Talk:Czech Republic speak to how efforts to proliferate "Czechia" are against policy and consensus, thus explaining my "agenda;" and user deleted everything I posted on talk page and called me an abusive wikipedia user.([diff])

I guess the attacks have continued. I was only aware of this section by looking on this page out of happenstance. User needs to be made aware of the consensus surrounding "Czechia". I've had a few administrators work with me on this. Also, I have not warned user for the comments made in their edit summary or this post, which would mean they are on their last chance to stop personally attacking and assuming bad faith before a block. If a proper warning is needed, then perhaps someone else should do it.

Also worth noting is that EUstudents's call into play of my CSD requests on Czech related things was because those articles were created by a long-term abuser of Wikipedia who is banned. (User:Jan Blanicky, and most recently their sock User:Heptapolein) This person is associated with an organization called the "Czechia Initiative," which seeks to force English-language speakers to use "Czechia." (they frequently use the same natonalistic speech that EUstudent does) Not only that but this user had a long history of sockpuppetry, copyvios, personal attacks, WP:COI editing, and disruptive edits. I uncovered a long history of abuse by them, and in that research, I nomainated many non-notable articles for deletion in my attempts to restore the integrity to this site that they damaged. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• EUStudent6, I can access his whole edit history, but the burden is on you, since I don't see any evidence to support the idea that there have been hundreds of incidents in which R9tgokunks has been systematically deleting any information about Czech Republic and people from this country. I was only aware of this section by looking on this page out of happenstance says R9tgokunks, and from his talk page's history I can see that you gave him no notice that you had brought him here: you've made no edits to his talk page all month, except for this bit of slander. This is despite the big huge orange notice at the top of the edit window: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You're about to stop violating our policies, whether because you decide to stop or because you get stopped. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Nyttend:, for what it is worth, in regards to [this edit that you brought up] reverted by Doremo (talk · contribs), it directly goes against what I have spoken about in regards to the proliferation of "Czechia" and it being against consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. I think it's worth bringing up [this talk page post] showing the seemingly non-policy-minded stance of EUstudent. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE IP

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

• IP in question tried on no less than four occassions to remove long-standing and reliably sourced content from the Aq Qoyunlu page.[258]-[259]-[260]-[261]
• IP in question continued to disregard the reliable sources on the talk page.[262]-[263]-[264]
• IP in question continued to make ungrounded self-formulated claims on the talk page and refrained from presenting any sources that would supposedly cover these claims.[265]-[266]-[267]
• IP in question tried to remove my comments from the talk page.[268] No edit summary/explanation.

Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that this IP is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They use dynamic IP address. This edit on talk page is similar to the reported IP.[269] --Wario-Man (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Another IP, removing references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And all three have the exact same geolocation.[270]-[271]-[272] This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the user's IP is dynamically allocated and the edits made by the other IP addresses are all from the same ISP and geolocation. Since the disruption by this IP isn't recent (the IP user's last edit was made here on 19:00, 27 December 2018‎), blocking the IP (or any of the others) would serve no purpose and would likely cause more harm than good if done now. This issue will quickly and easily turn into a "cat and mouse game" given the IPs and their respective CIDR ranges. To help combat this, I've applied semi-protection for one week and pending changes protection to the article for one month. This will be the best way to stop the disruptive editing as opposed to blocking, even if done during the time that disruption is actively occurring and in progress by this user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Coacaza

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

---

Coacaza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rapidly reverting sockpuppet edits (that's their rationale), but from a user account with no prior edits, this looks like another edition of Sock Wars (trademark George Lucas). I mass reverted some initial edits as they were reverting the sockmaster pre-ban, but some attention would be appreciated. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 disruption of anti-Qing rebellion pages

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

---

An IP user with a variety of addresses in Singapore is reinserting disruptive edits to White Lotus, Red Turban and White Lotus Rebellion. These pages were all semi-protected due to this user's last go-round, but they just waited for protection to expire to start again. IP addresses used:

• 115.135.203.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.203.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.239.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.142.24.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not sure if a couple of range blocks will do the trick or not, but it's annoying to play cleanup on somebody's bizarre attempt to conflate two similarly named historical events and to insert uncited theological detail that hardly passes the smell test. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Link: White Lotus Rebellion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed my typo but I appreciate it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi protection to these articles for two weeks. I took a look at the ranges for each IP, and they're much too large and with numerous edits to Wikipedia to block them without causing any collateral damage. This will better resolve the issue and without causing hardship on uninvolved editors who are making good changes to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Pooyatavakkoli

The following discussion is closed. 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 attempted to add biased wording to Global Compact for Migration, when I reverted them and left a level 1 NPOV notice on their talk page, they posted to my talk[273] saying that wikipedia is left biased because I removed their conservative bias. I tried to reason with Pooyatavakkoli, but they continue to insist that the only way to make the article unbiased is to rely on right-wing sources (you can see it all on my talk page). It is obvious that this user is incapable of recognizing their biases and should not be editing political articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd block as NOTHERE based on his rhetoric and edits, but I reverted them a couple of days ago at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I second third these assessments. GAB^gab 22:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser has removed multiple times my very basic factual and evidence-based decent edits on Global Compact for Migration based on his post-modern globalist liberal-leftist bias and has baselessly and misleadingly reported me on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. I tried to reason and have discussion with Tornado chaser but, he continues to refuse that he has such bias. It is obvious that this user is incapable of recognizing their biases and should not be editing political articles. Pooyatavakkoli (talk) 5:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I have given this editor an indefinite block with an explanation of what they must do to get unblocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good guidance. —JBL (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

I was really hoping I did not have to do this but this user has been stalking and harassing me incessantly. I warned him I would report him and now I feel that I have to.

This individual has been harassing me, calling me a sock and a puppet. He has been on wikipedia from what I can tell, since 2009 [274] and has been bullying me, and in bad faith undoing my legitimate edits - simple edits such as spelling and removing double/redundant citations[275].

Individual insists on using unsourced negative information about living persons and when confronted on talk page and proven wrong, refuses to engage [276]. It wasn't until ANOTHER user made the edits that he left things alone. This is clearly unfair and is bullying.

Individual also stalks my contributions and follows me around through different articles. This person had not made any edits to Planned Parenthood until I did [277]. Kind of creepy. Unfortunately this isn't one of those sites where you can block a user for privacy reasons.

Most of all, overtly and excessively aggressive in talk pages, using personal insults and swearing against me which I absolutely will not tolerate. This alone gets you banned on any online blog [278]

Using terms like - "cr*p" and "keep your bullsh*t" are highly offensive and have no place on wikipedia.

I read through some of wikipedia's sanction and disciplinary guidelines and I'm asking that you either ban this user or sanction them. I know he has made a lot of contributions, but this sort of behaviour should not go unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwright1469 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Following someone around because they are making inappropriate edits is allowed. It's not the same as harassment. However, an editor should be sure of his/her ground before calling someone else a sockpuppet. I would agree that edits like this are not appropriate but I don't see "keep your bullsh*t" anywhere on the page you referred to. If you have evidence of him swearing at you, please produce it. Deb (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *clutches pearls* Oh Lawdy, Lawdy, Mistah Ken uttered that most foul C word?! Heavens to Betsy, won't someone think of the children?! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Haven't checked all the diffs yet but you registered in April 2013, and you claim that BMK is bullying you since 2009. Can you describe how? Shashank5988 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't claim that at all. Deb (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Registered in 2013, didn't become active until a few weeks ago... Gee, could he have been using another account in 2009? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb! Here is the link [279] - to quote Ken directly cut the crap and keep your "thank you for your passionate response" bullshit to yourself. Completely uncalled for, offensive and should not go unpunished. @Ian.thomson I'm not going to discuss my personal and professional life online and why I haven't been using wikipedia but I'll leave it at that my career is demanding.

Over the last 24 hours I've discovered that people like Ken quite literally spend the entire day on here and have become so embroiled in wikipedia culture that they can't fathom anyone else having a full-time job and only doing this for a hobby. I'm starting to wonder if Ken is paid to harass people online. -Mwright1469 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mwright1469: "I have a life and a job, unlike you losers" is far more insulting to anyone who puts forth more effort than you than saying "crap." Dial it down. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting conversation, which shows you patronising BMK with "If the scientific jargon is too much for you, we can use lay terms so it's easier for you.", not to mention failing to understand the concepts on synthesis or reliable sourcing. Inevitably if an account which basically started editing yesterday focuses on two hot-button topics and starts editing in a POV manner [280] then experienced editors are going to look at it with suspicion. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

Aquaelfin

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

Aquaelfin was initially reported at AIV by Cabayi. The request was declined by Ad Orientem, suggesting a report here. I figured I would do the paperwork. This user has a long history of problematic edits.

• They were reported for removing a CSD template on an article they created.
• This was after a final warning for vandalising WP:FOOTYN, in an attempt to make the articles they were creating notable.
• Their talk page shows an extremely long history of orphaned non-free images, speedy deletion nominations, and AfD nominations.
• SveinFalk warned them for vandalism in 2016
• Vanjagenije warned them for removing CSD templates in August 2017

This disruption has been ongoing for an extremely long time, but has never resulted in a block. Something needs doing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the poor english on Aquaelfin's user page, along with the fact that they describe themselves as a "Thai football team updater" makes me suspect that there is a language barrier. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Will add that the English is really poor at many articles he has created, and not even understandable at some parts. He also adds red or pink colour in Season by season records when teams don`t enter the national cups by their own decision. No colours should be added, and the colour red is only to be used when teams are banned/suspended, so him adding red colour to "not enter" make it seems different. Due to the high number of articles he edits/creates, it`s not possible for anyone to "fix" all his poor English text and more. SveinFalk (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aquaelfin's most intractable problem is their flaky grasp of English, and a tendency to hit undo as a first reponse when challenged.

I challenged Aquaelfin in October over their use of Thai on enwiki - User talk:Aquaelfin#English please - and got a reply on my talk page - User talk:Cabayi/Archive 5#I talk Gunkiet only. It's not public. Aquaelfin has, so far as I can see, used only English on enwiki since then.

Recently Aquaelfin has created some problematic articles about low profile Thai footabll teams.

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkhuntien F.C. Aquaelfin noted that WP:FOOTYN was a factor and so decided to "fix" the policy in their favour FOOTYN's history. Again, in the face of my final revert edit summary "Discuss first, stop reverting", and a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning Special:Diff/875691978 on Aquaelfin's talk page (which Aquaelfin immediately removed Special:Diff/875693447), Aquaelfin has been discussing the policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Old definition of WP:FOOTYN is don't true with Number 57, FkpCascais, and SportingFlyer. I'd like to hear their opinion of the fruitfulness of that discussion.

Aquaelfin also created Bangkok City F.C. which I tagged A7, and Aquaelfin removed the CSD 1, 2, 3 times. After Aquaelfin received the {{uw-3rr}} Special:Diff/875703246, (which Aquaelfin again immediately removed Special:Diff/875704777). We'll never know how that would have progressed as SkyGazer 512 declined the A7 and Onel5969 (who also has a history with Aquaelfin [281]) took it to AFD.

Aquaelfin has language issues (an inability to accurately distinguish amateur/professional, national/regional, and cup/league) and a behavioural problem in that the first reponse to any obstacle is to revert/undo, whether it's a CSD on an article or an unwelcome message on Aq's talk page, rather than to understand it and deal with the underlying problem.

When I raised the AIV I was looking for a short-term block to show that the community has expectations which can't be brushed under the carpet. In the light of Bellezzasolo's ANI report it becomes a wider issue of WP:CIR and Aq's unwillingness to admit any failure in their understanding of English, but there is a willingness to understand and comply when there is absolutely no other alternative. Cabayi (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really ever get involved with ANI discussions so I don't think I'm going to comment on the actual user, but since you pinged me here I will say that I think I was correct to remove the CSD template. There are decent sources in the article and the club has played in the 2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region; both are almost certainly claims of significance. I'm by no means saying the article is notable, but I'm just saying that it did not fit the A7 criterion.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• While Aquaelfin was not correct to remove the speedy deletion template, I also have no problem with the removal of A7 generally as I don't think these fit the A7 criterion either. There's definitely a problem here since Aquaelfin doesn't seem to understand our notability guidelines, meaning the amateur Thai football club articles they create are frequently nominated for deletion and frequently get deleted, though not always - some randomly do pass WP:GNG. I do think a block here would be punitive and would suggest requiring the user to use AfC to create any new articles, but I share everyone's frustrations. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• SveinFalk teach me about banned/suspended colors, rule of league tables. In the past, I did red or pink colors of banned/suspended because I saw older member add same color in some Thai football club articles but I understand now and I fix banned/suspended colors which SveinFalk teaching to my standard.

In the past (about 2017 Thai FA Cup). I created Muangchang United F.C. article because this team joined Thai FA Cup but this article was deleted with A7 criterion. Who requested Muangchang United F.C. article to deleted. He explained me this team isn't Amatuer and Professional team. This team less famous to create wiki article. I understand and fix his explainable wiki article of Amatuer teams. one year later, I create wiki article of Amatuer teams follow his explainable but they get frequently nominated for deletion and frequently deleted. Wiki article of a lot of Amatuer teams, which I created in the last years, was deleted too. I ask moderater who was deleted this wiki articles. They explain Amatuer teams didn't join National cups such as Thai FA Cup to delete. I observe Amatuer teams pass WP:GNG to have wiki article, its was joined Thai FA Cup but Thai FA Cup is same knock-out cup of all countries in the earth. Thai FA Cup can joined by Professional teams, Amateur teams and Non-Amateur teams. Non-Amateur teams are Amateur teams which don't join any Amateur league and Amateur tournament. Thai FA Cup isn't basic standard to determine Amateur teams which pass WP:GNG because Non-Amateur teams can join this national cups. Non-Amateur teams don't famous more than Amateur teams to pass WP:GNG.

Cabayi took A7 to Ubon Kids City F.C. but he didn't see R1 in FA Cup column of Record tables. When he saw that, He pass WP:GNG. I laugh it for his standard. Aquaelfin (talk) 6:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Aquaelfin If I have teached you about not adding colours for "Not enter" a tournament, you certainly didn`t learn anything. It`s a year or two since I talked with you about that, but at PTU Pathumthani F.C. you added red colour in April this year. You have done same on lots of other articles. If you are not being banned, I suggest that you look through ALL articles you have created/edited and fix all your errors and improve the poor language. And just to add, if a T5-club has played in the FA-cup, then you can make an article about that team, according to the rules. If a club only has played in T5, you can not make an article. Even if I don`t agree with the rule, it`s very clear. SveinFalk (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

SveinFalk I do allow older member add it but I fix my colour error now. For Amateur teams in T5, I suggest to change basic standard to determine Amateur teams which pass WP:GNG to fix in Amateur tournament which have this clubs story in national public news. A lot of T5-club has played in the FA-cup have result of matches news only. I think it doesn't true. Aquaelfin (talk) 9:06, 31 December 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.

---

66.255.231.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted apparent legal threat at Criticism of Sikhism - see the edit summary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• And the same IP user has blanked the page again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That said, the lead of that article is a bit sucky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 II

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

---

The Hughes Complex in Trenton, NJ: just one of the many places you may not threaten to sue Wikipedians.

This looks very much like a legal threat but I suspect it is more bluff and bluster. Perhaps a kind word from an admin might cool their ardour.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and left a note at their TP, though since their only two edits were to make the threat, I suspect we've seen the end of it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Boy band vandal recent activity

The following discussion is closed. 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 boy band vandal was active last month and today, with a spate of IPs in his usual area of Alberta, but including a few days spent in the Southern California desert during the holidays. He's back home, now, using the IPs listed below. Can we get a few blocks going, including a rangeblock? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• 66.222.157.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2019
• 208.118.126.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2019
• 2001:56A:F883:CD00::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) January 2019

This nonsense is part of this LTA's signature style. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And now he's disrupting Russian-language Wikipedia, adding "American boy band" to the Brockhampton biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked 2001:56a:f883:cd00::/64 for two years and the IPV4 addresses for a month each. Graham87 07:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, global block requets go to m:Steward requests/Global. I might add one there about this issue later, if nobody else beats me to it. Graham87 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That takes care of it. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Dispute on policies

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

---

If you look at User talk:81.137.62.113, there is clearly a dispute on policies between the IP and me. They seem to claim that I am gaming the system. I am not sure about that and it is getting quite complicated to resolve. I would like admins to hop in and settle. Thanks. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the thread on my talk page for all rationalisations and dismantlements of arguments put to me by ImmortalWizard. Take notice that since our discussion began I have not edited the page in question, and I affirm the notion that a ring of editors are gaming the system. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that this area is subject to WP:GS/PW. Natureium (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, either for all editors involved, or simply for those guilty of WP:GAME by removing what they don't like. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wrestling again! Yipee! EEng 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for 48 hours for adding unreferenced content and edit warring to keep it in the article. And this is all about a stupid professional wrestling insult which is in itself a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

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

---

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

This user has continued personal attacks directed against me e.g. (calling me a Troll, etc) diff, diff, diff, diff.
The 2 WP:NPA warnings [282][283] (were read and removed here), have failed to have any effect, and the attacks again happened today. . --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Grow up, and grow a thicker skin. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Further observations

• Every coin has two sides. I don't think that Bbb23 has checked the background of the dispute. DBigXray has been spilling over his content dispute from Talk:Rafale deal controversy by wikihounding/harassing multiple editors of that dispute by either nominating their articles of interest for deletion or participating in the debates that concern these editors.[284][285] The degree of obfuscation by DBigXray constitutes harassment. Why a new editor wouldn't get angry over such harassment? I don't understand. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Everyone can look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitra Samaja (opened by User:DBigXray) and form their own impressions about who is behaving well or badly. You might find yourself agreeing with User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Background is not limited with just an AfD. The diffs above in the report by DBigXray includes Rafale deal controversy, which is indeed the locus of dispute where DBigXray had made 7 reverts. Qualitist (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not actually seeing how a block of "one week for disruptive editing and personal attacks", is warranted here. DBigXray has only presented one side.

First diff doesn't show that the new editor called DBigXray a "troll" but his act of declining a "fully protected request" which can be only attended by an admin.[286] DBigXray is not an admin but pretended to be an uninvolved admin there, contrary to WP:EDITREQ: "Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator." I would consider this to be a deliberate attempt to mislead others by DBX.

Second diff appears to be alleging DBigXray of Wikihounding, which is a correct allegation because DBigXray went to nominate an article for deletion only because it was heavily edited by NavjotSR.[287]

Third diff is absolutely not a personal attack, but a newbie act of asking help.

Fourth diff appears to be commenting on the conduct of DBigXray that he is misrepresenting the sources because he is clearly doing it and also bludgeoning.

DBigXray fails to mention that he was before coming to ANI, he first reported the editor on WP:AIV,[288] in spite of any vandalism. This clearly shows that DBigXray either don't understand what is the definition of "vandalism" or he was trying to get rid of an opponent after baiting him.

Where is the evidence for "disruptive editing"? To me it appears that this is just a pattern of harassment by DBigXray to follow contributions of other editors then misrepresent sources and obfuscate discussions. One can also have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir for observing this pattern obsfucation and misrepresation of sources from DBigXray.

DBigXray was let off barely 1 week ago,[289] for his disruptive editing and harassment. Now we are here again with more evidence of harassment of users. What we should do? Qualitist (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Qualitist, fully protected edit requests can be handled by any editor of long-standing, who often do decline them, on a variety of grounds.

And, you have been here long enough to know that this consists of brazen personal attacks nad is primarily based on their own creative interpretation of policies. ∯WBG^converse 05:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of the matter at hand, I don't see how Roxy the dog's "Grow up, and grow a thicker skin" is a helpful comment, or even an acceptable response to a complaint about personal attacks. Bradv🍁 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Bbb23: you must not close a thread when it is discussing your block. See WP:INVOLVED. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Um... no. That's not what WP:INVOLVED means at all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an admin can unilaterally close a thread which is discussing their admin action? That is opposite of WP:INVOLVED. Qualitist (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Previous ANI was closed without examining the evident pattern of long term disruption by DBigXray and the closing note lacked factual basis.

@EdJohnston: Hadn't you clarified DBigXray earlier regarding his understanding of "vandalism"?[290] When DBigXray violates copyrights [291] and tries to evade the fact that he was the original editor who added the copyvio, and shows extreme failure to recognize that he is using a poor source, per this discussion, then I rather wonder that why we should trust DBigXray anymore with editing in place of sanctioning him for his long term incompetence? GenuineArt (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I commented on a discussion where DBigXray was involved and I didn't know this user at that time. After an hour or so, I got notification that he reverted me on a page where he was never involved before and removed my explanation which I made in defense of allegations.[292] I could be reverting this edit because the clerk and filing editor had no problem, and DBigXray was only reverting because of a grudge, but I didn't.

On 28 December, DBigXray removed nearly 2,000 bytes and provided misleading explanation as "update",[293] which I had reverted with explanation[294] but DBigXray reverted me back and again provided misleading explanation [295] and left a level2 warning on my talk page, claiming I provided no edit summary[296] when I had provided the edit summary. I don't know why we should not refer this as WP:GAMING.

On talk page, DBigXray has not contributed productively but attacked other editors[297] and copy pasted his comments Copy pasting "If you think That I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake" at least 3 times by creating 3 separate sections.[298] He made every attempt to drive editors out and realise that there is no hope that DBigXray will agree with a resolution. Not to forget he made 7 reverts against 5 editors in just 4 days.

I got notified of a poor AfD nomination on my talk page, and DBigXray jumped to make the listings of the AfD for deletion,[299] until now he has added more than 10,000 bytes to that discussion and falsified the sources.[300] He falsely claimed that I didn't provided any sources and only speculated on sources contrary to my edits where I have in fact provided the reliable sources.

I would like to hear that how this sort of problematic behavior won't frustrate others that they would be critical of the actions of DBigXray? This is what NavjotSR appears to have done while having much better editing skills than DBigXray. I would support unblocking NavjotSR, because he was simply baited and offense was clearly not serious.

In NavjotSR's case, DBigXray first left him a "level 3" warning,[301] and second time he left him a "level 4" warning.[302] All of this counts as WP:BITE but it is deliberate harassment when DBigXray has been doing this on various occasions. This is a case of harassment and horrible editing skills. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Taking a look at what's being presented here, I am seeing a protracted pattern of harassment and disruption by DBigXray. Anybody can agree that this source [303] is thoroughly unreliable by reading the first paragraph alone, and the version after "copy edit" by this editor still appears to be infringing copyrights or closely paraphrased.[304] Since these edits came after sufficient warning and explanation provided by other editor against these edits,[305] I indeed agree that WP:CIR is a core issue here. The adamancy to remain unfamiliar with core policies after 3 years of active editing clearly indicate that the pattern of disruptive editing is well established now and will continue to cause more trouble regularly no matter how many reports have been filed. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, i think that 7 day ban on NavjotSR was way uncalled for and should be reversed immediately. Those edits were hardly personal attacks. The trolling thing was closest to a personal attack, and that hardly qualifies. Also, the guy is a newb. A newb can't get blocked for that. I've seen experienced editors routinely do worse. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Fowler&fowler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editor advised to remove offensive language and not repeat anything like it.

---

• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting racist and bigoted language used by Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs). This user has engaged in racist as well as religiously sectarian and communal language where the section was about clothing, but the user turned it into a Hindu vs. Muslim argument. Using crude, disrespectful and bigoted language like "Hindu garbage". This is not acceptable in Wiki. I am filing a grievance regarding the user's racist attitude. Calling someone or someone's culture "Hindu garbage" is unacceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

I am deeply hurt by this: "Hindu garbage" (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

Please be aware that you are required to notify all involved parties when opening a discussion here. I have posted the obligatory notice on F&F's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler, you owe us an explanation--not about clothes and stitches, but about this word choice. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler is the pre-eminent editor of all South Asia topics. He is also the most respected out of all contributors to the South Asia topic area. I see that this is a content dispute. Needless to say, as he is the main author of the FA India, Fowler's insight is most pertinent. Not paying attention to a user's rights can naturally frustrate them and make them lose their temper. That being said, I do not find the OP's claim of racism to be accurate. Fowler&fowler has made a comment on the content, not on any contributor. I suggest that discussions continue on the talk page and this thread be closed. There is nothing remotely actionable here. Code16 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Code16 (talk · contribs) Let's say I accept your view that it was about content (even though I vehemently disagree). Calling the so-called content, which is reflective of someone's culture, Hindu garbage - Is it not bigoted? Is it not racist? Is it not hurtful? I am extremely pained by his language. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

• I am having a hard time seeing a scenario that would make that choice of words OK. That said, I agree with Drmies. We need to hear from F&f. It's getting late here so I will look back in on this in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• This doesn't appear to be a personal attack but his word choice is definitely a problem. This also indicates some kind of unrestrained prejudice. A problematic trait in an editor. But I agree, let's at least hear him out first. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay. I just saw the notice. @Code16: is correct, the remark was about the content, not the contributor. True, I lost my temper, which I shouldn't have, and for which I apologize, but what does one do with an editor who under "Clothing," adds ten images of Hindu weddings (explicitly mentioned) or Hindu actresses (their religion clearly identified by their name), engages, in the text captions, in out-of-context and unreliable asides about bare midriffs and navels, when all the clothes being displayed, with the exception of the sari, were introduced by the Muslims, who brought the art of stitching to India and who still constitute the archetype of a tailor in North India. Not to mention that all examples are of the elite, that the actresses in the images, in typical Bollywood fantasy, are lighter skinned, by ten degrees of melanin, than the average in India. The images after all are supposed to represent the clothes of a country 69% of whose population lives in villages, and makes do with much less than the country's per capita income which ranks 140 out of 180 countries. The current images in place in the article are far more representative of India's population and diverse culture. In the "Cuisine" section, he added another ten images of vegetarian platters found in restaurants in India, the "vegetarian," usually in the Indian context being code for "upper-caste Hindu (or Jain)." That is what I was battling. Furthermore, he had taunted me earlier on my talk page about "Eurocentric" something or other. His edits represent, in my view, deliberate attempts to promote the Hindu/Urban/elitist history or culture of India to the exclusion of its other religions, regions, or classes. One way to have your way is to needle an editor with a surfeit of such edits, and then cry foul (or feign hurt) when they explode. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  My observations seem to coincide with F&F to an extent. ∯WBG^converse 05:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Has anyone even looked at the diff? F&f never said "Hindu garbage", he said "unmitigated garbage". There is a difference. Highpeaks is being dishonest here. Second, I have interacted extensively with both F&f and Highpeaks. F&f is a model wikipedian, with enormous contributions on South Asia topics, whereas Highpeaks is somewhat less...distinguished. He habitually pushes a (sometimes extremely silly) Hindu-nationalist POV [306], often with deceptive edit-summaries [307], edit-wars frequently, and routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with him "eurocentric" or "ethnocentric" [308]. This latest bit of dishonesty is particularly odious. I call for WP:BOOMERANG. Khirurg (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Point of fact - the phrase "Hindu garbage" was used. [309] -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this angry and dismissive two word phrase is that is both hostile to the editor you disagree with, and highly ambiguous. Did you mean "all Hindus are garbage" or "this is a very poor argument common among extreme Hindu nationalists"? How do we know, other than the fact that you are a productive editor? It is not really racist because members of any racial group can be Hindus and members of any racial group can be involved with all the other significant religions of the region. I suggest that you withdraw this comment, Fowler&fowler, and express yourself more clearly and with greater civility in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• F&f, please strike the offensive language and don’t use anything like it again. No further administrative action is needed here right now. Jehochman ^Talk 05:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Done and apologized. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 no one replied to Khirurg here just wanted to mention for the benefit of future readers, that Fowler&fowler did say "What is all this Hindu garbage." as well as the "Unmitigated garbage." comment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

POV-based blanking at Predator (film)

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

---

• Predator (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2600:1702:10:4290::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2600:1702:10:4290::/64 has removed a negative review from a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at Predator (film) seven times in the past few weeks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). When a reason is even provided, it's usually "This should not be in the critical response section because no one cares." I previously warned the editor at User talk:2600:1702:10:4290:1414:2A24:8AAB:55CF and User talk:2600:1702:10:4290:65AE:67E:BD15:979F, and gave an edit warring warning at User talk:2600:1702:10:4290:4CFE:9EF0:7B76:15F2. I tried to resolve the dispute via discussion at the talk page, but the IP does not seem willing to discuss. I've reverted the blanking, so I'd like an uninvolved admin to block this range for disruptive editing. Otherwise, this is going to continue indefinitely, often with "Do i need an explanation?" as an explanation. At this point, I think it's just trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week and I left a note on the latest IP's talk page. Hopefully that gets to them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Seeming death threat 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.

---

This edit by an IP includes what appears, amid the incoherence, to contain a death threat. I’d consider their edit history dubious at best, and think a block is in order, at the least. Jusdafax (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like incoherent jibberish, not a specific threat. I have deleted the revision to be cautious. Let’s revert, block and ignore. Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 allegedly by ජපස

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

---

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tornado chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:ජපස has been making personal attacks in a discussion at COIN, calling people intelectually vapid, unethical, a true believer who has been brainwashed, and lacking intellectual heft. I warned them [310], and they dismissed my warning as "commentary"[311] and told me not to post on their talk page again[312]. Then they made this somewhat personal comment[313] and I pinged them with a warning saying that I may report them if they continue making PAs[314]. Since then they called an editor intellectually bankrupt. I don't see how these insults to editors' intelligence are going to stop without at least an admin warning. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at this user's block log and I see a lot of blocks for reasons like incivility, arbitration restriction violations, and socking. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and quackery topics are difficult areas to edit, but civility is still required. Jonathunder (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Josh, knock it off. You are making needless work for the admins who have to review threads on ANI. You know better than to use inflammatory language. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Lac Sante article was kept, but page still shows deletion

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

---

Hello admins. I am not sure if this is some temporary technical issue, but the Lac Sante page still has the articles for deletion banner on top it. However, when I follow the link and go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Sante, it shows that the article was kept. May I request an admin to resolve this issue please? Thank you.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologise if this is the wrong venue, but I cannot find any place to post about technical issues.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Sheldybett, when you do a non-admin "keep" close, please remember to remove the AFD template from the article and add the {{oldafdmulti}} to the talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC incident at Talk:Albania–Greece relations

Hello, a question. Can editors modify unilaterally an ongoing RfC by adding their own RfC options to it?

Someone opened a RfC at Talk:Albania–Greece relations. Then another editor who didn't liked the ongoing RfC, came and added unilaterally his preferred RfC options into the ongoing RfC: [315]. It is not even part of the ongoing RfC's question. Is that allowed? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: - almost all RfCs I participate in aren't on talk pages, but on those at least options (especially compromise options) are frequently created throughout the process. It doesn't like they've been adding gratuitous options to disrupt debate, so it seems fine to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User fabricating statistics etc., no communication after many warnings - please block.

Dude Master 2 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced and in some cases obviously fabricated statistics and false/POV information, and refuses to communicate in any way, including never using edit summaries. There have been multiple "final warnings" and a recent ANI report, all of which they ignored, or removed from their talk page without comment. Latest edit today Special:Diff/875092851/prev, arbitrary and unexplained change to population number. See the previous ANI report for more examples. Asking for a block for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

May I refer you to the previous ANI thread about this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, thanks, yes I started that thread recently, and linked to it above. It got archived before anything happened, because the user didn't respond or make any new edits. Now they've returned and continued to make more problematic edits, disregarding the warnings and the previous ANI report, and still no communication whatsoever. So I'm now asking for a block, if only to get their attention. Does that make sense? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, today they made this edit: Special:Diff/875146508/875152046, changing the population numbers in contradiction to the given source. It looks like the number came from an earlier edit:Special:Diff/860541924/860574843, where they decided to just add a million people... --IamNotU (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit and fabricate statistics, and hasn't reacted to additional warnings or notices of this thread. Today Special:Diff/875337222/prev they added a citation that gives a number of 65 million people, but in the article they write 72 million. If it was an isolated incident it could be a typo, but it's part of a clear pattern of unsourced altering and "fudging" numbers to suit their POV. Not all their edits are bad, but mostmany are, and the main thing is that they don't communicate at all. --IamNotU (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at their edits, and, indeed, most edits seem good, but edits like this one where they change statistics without amending the source are not really acceptable. Given that they have never reacted in any way to warnings or explanations at their talk page, I am afraid a block could be needed, unless someone manages to find a way to let them understand the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The user is on a final warning basis due to the last warning that was left on his/her user talk page. If this continues, I think that a temporary block is completely fair. As much as we appreciate the good edits (and even the good-faith edits) by this user, edits that add incorrect information to articles and/or don't cite reliable sources is problematic. Edits or behaviors, even if made in good faith, can be disruptive if repeated and lead to action being taken if it's deemed necessary in order to prevent more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter and Oshwah, thanks for taking a look. They've actually deleted a previous "final warning" from another editor on 7 December, and kept on making problematic edits. A couple of days ago, they also deleted final warnings from me, as well as the notice of the first ANI report, without comment. Since then they've only made a couple of edits, those are ok. You're right that many of their contributions are ok, and I don't think they're purposely vandalizing. But they're obviously pulling figures out of thin air and "massaging the numbers" to suit themselves, and ignoring any attempts to communicate with them. I'm not in a rush for a block (temporary, of course), but it seems unlikely they'll respond otherwise. If you like though, I can just keep an eye on it and report back if there are any more problematic edits. --IamNotU (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The 72 million figure is a little bit out of date: [316] (p. 216 of the report or p. 247 of the pdf) says "7.38 crore citizens hold valid passports" (i.e. 73.8 million) as of end-of-2017. It looks to me like around 9 million have been issued in 2018 so far, by adding up the year-to-date figures in the "granted" rows in the download from here. Anyway it looks like good faith editing to me. Please stop going berserk about blocking people (wp:bite) and try to be welcoming and helpful instead. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, "going berserk"? There's no call for that kind of snarky remark! I'm more than happy to be welcoming and helpful, and I usually am, but it's not really possible when someone won't communicate at all, and never has. Two admins have already said that a block would be appropriate due to that. Even if the edits are good faith, changing statistics without giving a source, so that they contradict the existing source, is a problem. Especially so if the numbers appear to be invented: [317], [318], [319], and many others. If they would discuss it, there would be no need to be thinking about a block - the point of a block is to hopefully get them to engage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not wrong to raise the issue. Even if they are good faith edits, the user should respond one way or another and explain him/herself. It's worth drawing a line in the sand as from now. Next time User:Dude_Master_2 crosses it, I'm willing to make a short-term block for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Deb... The user hasn't edited since December 27th. However, there's now an IP 116.72.212.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that started editing on the 29th, similar patterns, no edit summaries, some are properly sourced but others not, for example replacing the same population figure as Dude Master 2 had edit warred over, in contradiction to the source: [320]. --IamNotU (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU:You can make a sock report - if the IP is proven to be the same user, both will be permanently blocked. Deb (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's technically sock puppetry, but given that they're not evading a block, I wonder if an indefinite block is a bit too harsh at this point? They do make some good contributions. I hoped a temporary block might bring them to the table to discuss the bad edits. I don't know why they don't, maybe a language issue? Is there some way we could just do a temporary block? Oshwah, can I ask what you would do here? --IamNotU (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I just saw the notification and that I was pinged for help here, and I'll be happy to try and do so. :-) From what I skimmed through and read from this ANI discussion, sock puppetry is possible but not proven, so I obviously wouldn't be able to apply any blocks or sanctions for anything sock puppetry-related - not without evidence and not without proof. However, it looks like this user has been consistently making edits that are problematic and that it's causing undue frustrations and hardship among other editors to fix and talk to the user about (and to no agail). Given the number of warnings and discussions that have been left on this user's talk page, and the number of opportunities that we've given for this user to try and either work with us or review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and apply them in order to stop the problematic editing, I think that leaving the user in-depth and detailed custom message to list exactly what the issues have been (and with diffs and links to relevant policy pages), that the user has been repeatedly talked to and to no avail, that they are on a final warning basis from here on out regarding their edits, and end with clear expectations set and what the remedies will be imposed (block) should these expectations not be met or any further issues or problems continue. Should the user cause further problematic edits again, start them off at a 36 hour block, then an indefinite block if it happens a second time (so that they must explain and appeal their block before they can edit again). This is what I'd do if it were up to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I did write a custom message on their talkpage already, something like you describe. The thing is though, that it looks to me like they've now abandoned the account and are just editing logged out. I'm hesitating to make an SPI report, because of the consequences of an indefinite block. Just not sure what else to do. Start over at warning level 1 with the IP? --IamNotU (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion. This kind of vandalism is particularly troubling. Lends credibility that Wikipedia is unreliable. A temporary block on the IP does little, if any, harm. And as to the named user, I suggest they be blocked (if they are gone already there is no harm, and if they come back, let them explain what they were doing and how they relate to the perceived socks). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with an SPI report. It's pretty obvious that it's the same person. It's not my intention to kick them off of Wikipedia forever, but I guess even if there's an indefinite block it isn't necessarily a permanent block. If they want to keep editing, they'll have to speak up one way or another... --IamNotU (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:85.242.159.227 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

Jumping the gun: Making changes to infoboxes of Raycom station articles before the sale to Gray is even officially complete. We need to see some sort of confirmation (e.g. a press release). [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger closed yesterday, so this thread is pointless (and spec had it closing on January 1st so it was good faith); please use WP:3RRV in the future. Also, ten minutes after a warning and taking them here is against every smidgen of common sense. The boxes in the edit box are clear; ANI is not for this purpose. Nate • (chatter) 03:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 and personal attacks by user Red Emperor

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

---

• Red Emperor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) citing disruptive editing on Panathinaikos B.C. and Greek Basket League, citing personal attacks on his talk page, vandalised past 4th warning, then deleting the warnings and the personal attacks from his talk page. --Panosgatto (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panosgatto (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• There are multiple messages that highlight that you must notify the other contributor on the user's talk page. I have done this. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Cross article WP:NOTHERE 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.

---

Hi, this IP 27.4.52.99 is vandalizing several Iran/UAE articles repeatedly while having been warned by two editors. Some of his/her edits : [327], [328], [329], [330], [331]. Warnings on user's talk : [332]. An admin should deal with this anon user in order to stop disruption. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 31 hrs for disruptive editing. Clearly POV pushing contrary to established consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift action Ad Orientem. BTW, wish you a happy new year. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem and same to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Spamming-Vandalism of my talk page and personal attacks by user Xaliver

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

---

• Xaliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming and citing personal attacks and insults on my talk page, then deleting some of his insults, so they can't be seen. He also deleted our proper discussion on his talk page, where I was extremely kind to him. He definitely promotes hooliganism, covering it up by citing to his user page: "My aim is to promote sports, olympic spirit, fair play, values and encourage citizens participate in sport events, as a mean of psycho-physical and moral integrity and society improvement", which is clearly a cover-up for a hooligan behavior in favour of the team he supports, Olympiacos, and then attacking fans of other teams. --Panosgatto (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've indeffed them based on their behavior on your talk page. I haven't even looked at the other issues. Just as an FYI, you are required to notify any involved party of ANI discussions. In this case I'm overlooking that based on their egregious behavior. But please remember that if you need to open a discussion here again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am temporarily lifting their block to allow them an opportunity to explain some of their edits which are in Greek. I would also like you to provide specific diffs with English translations if they are in Greek for the offending edits. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ping Panosgatto -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do nor one revert! Do you understand??? He is attacking the truth, with lies. He should be ashamed of. Xaliver (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Attacking other editors in that manner is a quick way to get your block reinstated. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I never caused a problem before. Do I deserve a chance? Xaliver (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given you a chance. You have been unblocked in order to hear your side of this and take a deeper look at what is going on here. I am also awaiting specific diffs with explanatory notes or translations from Panosgatto. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I promise i will not deal with such a user again. I'm gonna contribute well as I did all this time previously.Xaliver (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a start. I am waiting on Panosgatto for diffs unless they are prepared to drop this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, despite the hooligan spamming on my talk page, let me translate some of his comments for you:

• Olympiacos should be blocked for causing them awful eternal pain. :'(  :'(
• You are hurting, and Piraeus is responsible for that.
• Is my behaviour anacceptable because Olympiacos has fucked you? Cry...

--Panosgatto (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I never used the word "fuck". You are lying again. Xaliver (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Xaliver used the phrase "has you holed", which is a slang term for penetrating. Different word, same thing. --Panosgatto (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I never used the word "fuck". You are lying again. Xaliver (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting a good idea of what is going on here.

• • I want both of you to stop sniping at each other.
  • Xaliver, you are not to use Wikipedia to promote your team, cheer for it, or taunt the fans of other teams. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan blog. Confine your edits to accurate, verifiable and neutral additions of factual material.
  • Panosgatto, you should try discussing issues with other editors before coming here. This should be the LAST place you come when you have a problem, not the first.

If both of you understand this, I think we can close this discussion and move on. Do you both understand? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I do and I am sorry for my words. Xaliver (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Panosgatto You have an apology and a promise to abide by our guidelines for editing. Can we move on? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threat and escalation request

User_talk:Upsetterfc and other pages, e.g. Talk:Desmond Napoles contain a potential legal threat that was copied to multiple pages by User:Upsetterfc.

• "I will request removal via arbitration or legal action if Controversy section is added again."

At the bottom of User_talk:Upsetterfc, the statement "I am waiting for action on this matter." made me create this report.

The user has asked for "escalation" in one of their recent edits; I am afraid that I can not provide diffs if this is a real threat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Update, fortunately: User seems to be removing the "legal action" part of their comment: Special:Diff/876398117 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not mention legal action again. But I will request page removal as his legal guardian due to page being used to attack minor.Upsetterfc (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Upsetterfc: "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog." If you claim to represent this person, you need to prove your bona fides. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the instructions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my child. Will look into ticket system when time permits.04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetterfc (talk • contribs)

@Upsetterfc: While establishing your relationship with the subject may be useful, that alone would not necessarily affect the article. The first approach should be to prepare a statement detailing what problems exist with the Desmond Napoles article. The only relevant problems are those concerning violations of Wikipedia's policies (see WP:5P for a summary—are sources reliable? are topics mentioned due? is there a biographies of living people problem?). After preparing a statement (say on your talk or at Talk:Desmond Napoles), copy it in a new section at WP:BLPN and wait for responses. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There are major BLP concerns with this article about a young minor child who has emerged as a public figure in drag performances and gay rights. Some horribly unreliable sources have been used in this biography. Because the community has decided at AfD that Desmond Napoles is notable and should have a biography, I call on all experienced editors to consider adding this article to your watchlists. It must be kept neutral and well-sourced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither The Western Journal nor the Daily Wire is a reliable source, and both are completely unacceptable for use in a biography of a living person. An editor who removed such poorly referenced content should be assisted and commended, not chastised in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Onlyheretovandelize

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

---

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

Please block this user due to their username and editing history. Please ping me if you need me. R2 (bleep) 01:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Snowsky Mountain

The following discussion is closed. 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 history of POV pushing at Islam related articles, with spooky sources, while removing RS. this, this, this, this, this, and many more. They had been warned on their talk page several times: here and here, and then here. They were then warned about this by an admin in previous report. When I was removing from article Umar the stuff pointed to by the admins in the discussion , they undid my edits. I told them about their previous warning but they did it again. AhmadLX (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 at Umar

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

---

Thread moved from WP:AN and retitled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

The page of the Second Caliph of Islam, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, was recently changed to reflect a minority view that a majority of the world's 1.7 billion Muslims do not accept as being historically accurate. I have read the page many times over in the past and was immediately aware it had been edited when I looked at it today. This is an affront to Muslims everywhere, as this article now disparages one of the greatest and most important figures in Islamic history. Please let us know how we can return the page to how it was originally and lock it so that in the future, such revisions cannot be made.

The page is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umar&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B020:A0D5:A189:2019:492A:3C0D (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can say that articles are not locked simply to prevent edits others may disagree with. They are only locked to stop active vandalism or edit warring. If the minority view you speak of is being given undue weight, that is a matter for discussion on the article talk page with other editors to reach a consensus. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Minority views are not usually excluded totally unless they are a very small fringe views that have little coverage in independent reliable sources. But minority views shouldn't be given more weight than needed. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That said, the OP seems to have a point though: there were some recent edits on this article, including this [333] and similar ones, that (to my non-expert eye) look very much like heavily tendentious Shia religious polemic. I'm considering indef-blocking the editor who did that, Snowsky Mountain (talk · contribs), whose entire activity on Wikipedia (from what I can tell at a quick glance) seems to consist of tendentious editing of this kind. (Will notify them of this discussion in a moment.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for bringing this issue to my intention. If you have a problem with any of my edits, then I would be happy to discuss those edits with you on either my talk page or the talk pages of the articles in question. As for Umar's page, as well as the other pages I edit, I do my best to ensure that my content includes references, and I frequently support my edits with references from a combination of Shia, Sunni, and non-Muslim sources. The "Attack on Fatimah's house" section on Umar's page, for example, is supported by 31 references. Is there a specific section of Umar's page that you would like me to discuss with you in more detail? If so, please let me know. (Some of my edits to Umar's page, by the way, have already been discussed on Talk:Umar - I do take the community's views into account when editing Wikipedia.) Finally, I would like to point out that I edit more pages than simply religious and historical pages; for example, I have created 6 new (non-redirect) articles about technology, and I am a frequent editor at existing technology pages (such as the Google Pixel page, which I have edited 57 times). Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp what a WP:RS is, however. You're using primary sources (Al-Tabari, Ibn Qutaybah, etc) as well as using A Restatement of History of Islam and Muslims which is clearly a polemical religious source. And that's just in the edit that FutPer linked above. Number of sources doesn't mean anything if they are all primary sources or unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I'm actually not interested in "discussing" these edits with you from the perspective of an editor, as I have no editorial interest in these topics and am dealing with the situation purely from an uninvolved administrative perspective. What I am doing, however, is warning you: I have reviewed many of your edits, and I find that virtually all of them, as far as these Islam topics are concerned, are quite obviously designed to promote a certain belief system (the Shia one) over its rivals. It's not that these contents aren't referenced; it's the fact that you are making Wikipedia articles overtly taking sides in a dispute, stating what are evidently parts of a pro-Shia narrative directly in Wikipedia's own voice. I'm telling you now that if you want to continue editing in this topic area, you will have to completely modify your approach to editing; if you continue making edits like this, you will end up blocked for WP:tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning; I will definitely be more careful going forwards. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

FlightTime threatening blocks for good conduct.

The following discussion is closed. 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 "FlightTime" has twice threatened me with blocks today under the claim I added unsourced content to Rammstein (which can be seen in the view history section I give clear, concise and valid reasons for my edits) despite the fact I actually removed 2 unsourced quotes and his reversion added unsourced claims to the article. I messaged him on his talkpage explaining why I didn't deserve to be threatened with blocks and that he was in fact in the wrong but this was ignored and deleted from his page. So I am opting to report this user as I was unable to come to any terms of agreement with him. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Uh yeah. I can't see any reason for you getting reverted. You removed an unsourced paragraph and added in the dates for the band members which are essentially sourced elsewhere in the article. About the only thing I could fault you for is not putting a source for the dates but that can be solved by removing ALL the dates. spryde | talk 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sp, I've reverted all my changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mwright1469

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears to me that User:Mwright1469 is a sock, given their editing history:

• Account created 13 April 2013 [334]
• 3 edits on that date, including one [335] to PERMISSION requesting to have the account confirmed;
• editor was told simply to edit to get it confirmed [336]
• no more edits were made until 8 December 2018, when they added text to their user page
• then today, 29 December, a spate of 33 edits to controversial subjects (Turning Point USA, Planned Parenthood, Ben Carson) in which have attempted to use primary sources to skew articles to be more positive about right-wing subjects, and mor enegative about left-wing subjects
• editor's edit summaries [337], and talk page comment [338] shows strong familiarity of Wikipedia policies (although they're not actually following them)

This is a classic pattern for a sleeper sock, created and put aside for a useful time. Yes, I know that SPI is "that way", but you cannot file an SPI report without naming a master, and I have no master to name, only the obvious signs of sockpuppet editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ken for that introduction. Unfortunately medical education tends be lengthy but I'm happy I have time now on my holidays to contribute to Wikipedia. I can see you have taken this quite personally. As I said before, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the appropriate use of primary sources. It only took me a few youtube videos to get a hang of it.

It's important to replacing a secondary source that misquotes an organization's mission statement, with a primary source. I see you have been following my edits. I did not know Ben Carson's family was a right-wing subject or that abortion market share mathematics were a left-wing subject. Please kindly refrain from personal insults.

Mwright1469 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, ANI does not deal with content disputes, that happens on article talk pages. Your edits on Turning Point USA and Planned Parenthood have been disputed, so -- as you are aware -- you need to get a consensus for those edits on those article's talk pages.

In the meantime, ANI does deal with behavioral issues, which, in this case, is the high probability that you are a sock of a blocked or banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken So it took me a little googling to find what a "sock" is. I'm sorry you're taking this a little personally Ken. If you are not willing to have a constructive discussion on the talk pages and would rather speak in threats and personal insults, admin may have to deal with you on this. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... you're intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources, on your fourth edit you know to go to WP:PERMISSIONS to try to get confirmed in advance, but you've never heard of a "sock", you had to Google it?

Yeah, I totally believe that, it makes complete sense.

Hey, dude, you've overplayed your part. Many of those reading this thread who had been thinking "BMK really should wait until he has enough evidence to file an SPI" just changed their minds to "No way is this person such a clueless newbie that they don't know what a sockpuppet is."

Just a matter of time, Mike. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, another good indication that your only purpose here is to push a POV: you just attempted to pass off Live Action - an anti-abortion site - as a reliable secondary source, [339] citing this polemic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Another data point: Clueless newbie knows what the BLP policy is. [340]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I restored the two comments above, which were deleted by Mwright1469 in this edit. He then added the comment below. I assume he will say this was an unfortunate error of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So this all started with me editing interesting medical genetics pages and editing Dr. Carson's page, and then it quickly evolved to me meeting some very interesting people. Now I'm learning new acronyms, heck of a learning curve. I didn't know people edited wikipedia articles as a full time job. -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My friend, if you want to play Sherlock, be my guest. As for your acronyms, BLP in my world is blood pressure, SPI is what the MRI techs can't ever get right, and ANI is what the lab uses to know if you have gonnorhoeae ;) have fun wasting your time. I think we're done here. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My prognosis is that Mwright1469 is a gonnor. EEng 08:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Until his next sock appears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken you need to stop harassing me. You have stalked me all over wikipedia and have maliciously undone my legitimate edits. I know you think you know me but you don't. I've been editing wikipedia pages as a hobby for two days and you're actually starting to really bug me. I'm politely asking you to back off and to stop stalking me. -Mwright1469 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious.--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, I'm just wondering, is anyone in this thread going to put up any evidence of sockpuppetry, or is being a new user and knowing how to read the fucking manual a blockable offence now? As an experienced SPI clerk, had I seen this reported in a proper case I would have summarily closed it for lacking evidence and I may have blocked the filer for biting the newbie. Mwright1469 has accurately defined this as bullying.

That being said, Mwright1469, you are off to an awfully bad start here. You've already made several patronizing comments about your fellow editors which makes it seem you've a superiority complex which will not be compatible with editing here. There may be jargon relevant to your field which may require you to explain things in more general terms from time to time, but you must find a way to do so without also implying that others lack intelligence. You are also clearly editing with an agenda in the topic of abortion, and that is not allowed. You should find some topics to edit which are not so controversial until you build more experience. You've been advised about the discretionary sanctions in this topic already although you blanked that notice from your talk page, so you ought to know now that an uninvolved administrator such as myself may place editing restrictions such as a topic ban to ensure smooth operation of the project. I am choosing not to do so at this time only because I dislike the way in which this came about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: What your comment really boils down to is that multiple admins and experienced editors -- you, me, Black Kite, Ian Thompson, and others -- have all looked at Mwright's editing history and have found it to be suspicious, but because of the way our CU policy is written, there's nothing substantive that can be done about it. That's precisely why I didn't file an SPI report - because I knew it would be rejected - and why I instead brought the problems with this editor's history here instead, so the community would be aware of this probable danger.

That highlights a problem with our CU policy on en.wiki -- and it's my understanding that it's our problem, not the WMF's because -- again, my understanding -- other language wikis have looser restrictions on CU without falling afoul of those imposed by the foundation. So, that's a problem which leaves dealing with editors like Mwright1469 to this kind of report: presenting enough evidence to hopefully stay away from a WP:Casting aspersions block when there's not enough evidence to file an effective SPI report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, thank you for your support. I understand that some users here have had negative experiences with others in the past and are taking it out on me with bullying. Things got a little heated with Ken and I, and it bugged me how I was being treated by him. I was not expecting to be treated with harsh accusations on my second day here and I will try to be kinder in the future and avoid using language that my accusers may not take kindly to. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right.

With that said, I think it'd be best if Ken and I avoid contact, this whole experience got far too out of hand and has not been very professional.

Thank you again to Ivan, and thank you TelosCricket for your message. -Mwright1469 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Here, they are intentionally emphasising "second day" as they are aware of the community's thoughts regarding WP:BITE. Again, they wouldn’t know this unless they have had more experience. IWI (chat) 03:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• As Dicklyon points out in this comment on Mwright1469's talk page (which Mwright1469 deleted as "Harrassment" [341]) concerning Mwright1469's edits to Exploitation of women in mass media, Mwight1469's POV edits are not only pro-right-wing, they are also anti-women.
  It's also concerning that they made edits to Pregnancy (mammals) [342], and Gestation [343], in which the only thing they chose to add from a journal article which studied differences in gestation periods between White, Black and Asian cohort populations, was that the "average length of gestation being 5 days shorter in black populations than in white populations". The abstract for the study [344] reports that "This research suggests that normal gestational length is shorter in Black and Asian women compared with white European women and that fetal maturation may occur earlier" (emphasis added), however Mwright1469 only added the difference between blacks and whites, and writes as if it has been proven. The choice to emphasize the difference between blacks and whites, while not mentioning Asians, is disturbing if it indicates another of the POV prejudices with which Mwright1469 is editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This kind of POV pushing is a clear indication of WP:NOTHERE. I speculate that this user was blocked on another account for this, or a similar, reason. IWI (chat) 05:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"The average length of gestation is about 5 days shorter in black populations than in white populations." is the first sentence of the abstract for this study. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but that study was not cited as a source. Why was it so darn important to note the 5-day difference between back and white gestation periods that Mwright1469 felt compelled to add it to two articles (later removed from one) without the proper citational support?

In any event, I have a hard time believing that 5 days is outside of the margin of error, or is so darned important that it has to be noted in either article. Do differences in ethnicity have more of an effect than differences in access to medical care, differences in access to proper nutrition, differences in familial support, differences in wealth? I very much doubt it, and the existence of two studies proves nothing. They shouldn't be cited at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok Ken I'm going to have to stop you right there and draw a line that you're not going to cross. You have gone WAY too far with your accusations. You can either familiarize yourself with the epidemiological literature I posted or you can try and find well-designed research on ethnic differences of gestation period - I'll save you a whole course on medical embryology and inform you that barely any exist because for starters, measuring gestation accurately is a fundamental problem. Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial. As they say WP:DROPTHESTICK my friend.

@Levivich I was going to use that study but I wanted to wait until I found a better study. But you know what? I'm just going to include this one for now, I think our friend Ken needs a break from his online investigations ;) -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Referencing a lesser known essay as well that you just happened to familiarise yourself with in two days? This is a content dispute anyway, not here. IWI (chat) 06:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Mwright1469, what are you suggesting when you say "Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial"? IWI (chat) 06:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What essay? It's a research study. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean WP:DROPTHESTICK, it’s an essay. Please answer the last question as well. IWI (chat) 06:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor recently mentioned DROPTHESTICK on Mwright's talk page. [345] Levivich (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cullen328 has just blocked him for 2 weeks. IWI (chat) 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time identifying what rule this editor broke that merits a two-week block without warning in the middle of an ANI discussion in which the proposed indef block is almost snow-opposed. Most of their edits, while of a certain POV flavor, seemed sourced and accurate, and the entire basis of the sock allegations appears to be newbie proficiency. Seems like a content dispute not a conduct dispute at all. Levivich (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve taken it up with Cullen. If everyone seems to disagree then he’ll probably retract it. IWI (chat) 06:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Cullen made the wrong call or that no sanction is warranted. I agree with Cullen it appears it could be trolling, and I note to Cullen's credit the block said any disagreeing admin is free to unblock. But I want to point out that this editor has been accused, on their first and second active days, at ANI, at their user talk page, and at various article talk pages, of: socking, 3RR, NPOV violations, SPA, and NOTHERE; the indef block proposal did not seem to have consensus; and he was ultimately blocked for "disruptive editing." I don't have the experience to judge what should be done here, but I for one am confused about which, if any, of those accusations are considered substantiated. I think it would be clearer if the editor were warned, officially, for specific conduct violations (if any), and blocked if they violated such a warning. A shorter block, tban or other remedy may also lie. Levivich (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for assuming good faith on my part, Levivich. I was completely sincere that any other adminstrator is free to unblock if they disagree with my assessment. Any adminstrator. I took this action based on the confidence that the editing community has placed in me (true) and the fat paycheck I receive (joke). This discussion constitutes the warning, in my view, and the editor's response here justifies a two week block. There is no consensus for an indefinite block and if any other adminstrator feels that two weeks is excessive, feel free to unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is not a uniquely wikipedia concept so it is unfair to say a new editor should not know what a sock is. In the closed section someone alleged the editor said they had been editing since 2009 but I read that they said BMK had been here since 2009. Let's keep our facts straight. Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, googling “sock urban dictionary” comes up with this as the second entry. Googling “sock wikipedia” comes up with WP:SOCK as the fifth entry. CThomas³ (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that I never expressed doubt that one could find out what a "sock" was from Googling it, only that Mwright1369 didn't already know and had to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies, I was not trying to imply otherwise. I was just following up on your comment below: I highly doubt googling "sock" will show anything to do with a sockpuppet, although I could be wrong. I was curious to see how much work it would take, and if it were something a truly new editor with no context might reasonably stumble upon. CThomas³ (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• That comment was made by another editor, not me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oops, my apologies again. CThomas³ (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Mwright1469's initial edits on 29 Dec were to Turning Point USA, replacing some secondary sources with primary self-sourcing, which is perhaps problematic, but arguably allowed and maybe even preferred under WP:ABOUTSELF–the kind of thing, in my view, that is the proper subject for discussion and consensus on an article's talk page. BMK reverted these edits wholesale,^[346] the second time calling them "POV edits" in the edit summary.^[347] After BMK's initial reversions, Mwright took it to the talk page, with a somewhat pedantic response, but not an uncivil one.^[348] BMK's first response to Mwright's post was: "I am very familiar with the rules on sourcing. What is the name of your previous account, for whom this account is a sock?"^[349] That's a provocative, and I would say borderline uncivil, response.

BMK posted this ANI report just minutes later, before ever posting a second post on the TPUSA article's talk page.^[350] Similarly, there was no discussion yet at all on Planned Parenthood. At that point, this was, in my view, entirely a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. It should not have left the talk pages of the articles in question. I understand Mwright having a strong negative reaction to BMK after that kind of "welcome." I believe BMK was acting in good-faith but I also believe he could have assumed more good faith and thereby kept this dispute from spiraling downwards. This is a case study for why WP:AGF is important. If you accuse editors with whom you have a content dispute of bad conduct (socking, COI, POV pushing, whatever), all you do is needlessly inflame the content dispute. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your analysis of my motivations (i.e. that I was fighting a content dispute by other means) is completely incorrect.

Turning Point USA is an article which has had a plethora of IPs and unconfirmed editors -- including socks -- adding information which either attempts to skew the article in favor of te group, or is promotional on the organization's behalf. It requires constant watching from as many eyes as possible. When Mwright1469 made their edits, and I checked their editing history (which I laid out at the top of this report) alarm bells went off. That was the purpose of this report, to alert the community to probable socking activity which did not rise to the level of an SPI report, but which was a very familiar pattern for sleeper socks. That I had to go about it that way is, as I said above, a problem with our CU policy, but that's the way things stand.

My report had nothing to do with a content dispute, but looking at Mwirght1469's edits makes it quite clear that they are pushing a far-right, anti-abortion, anti-women POV, and they need to be watched very closely because of it. That, too, is not a content dispute, it's a behavioral problem: see WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to analyze your motivations, just your actions. I believe your motivations were "pure" or good-faith: protecting the encyclopedia from damage and bringing an urgent problem to the community's attention. What I'm saying is that some things which you feel are "quite clear," others do not feel are so clear, as evidenced by editors' comments above and below. WP:AGF, to me, means if you think someone's a sock, you don't say that, unless you have enough to go to SPI. What you refer to as a "problem" with the CU policy may not be a bug, it may be a feature. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Could be, but please do recall that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. A lot of damage can be done while sitting back and AGFing, allowing a problematic editor to run free -- and, no, it's not so easy as you may think to undo damaging edits, because they get buried below other edits and need to be removed by hand, which can be a time-consuming process. I'm (obviously) of the opinion that in many cases it's better to bring up apparent problems when they actually make their appearance, as opposed to when you can wrap up the case in shiny paper and a pretty bow and present it all neat and tidy.

I'm not asking for CUs to be allowed to go snooping into everyone's information at will, all I'm suggesting is that the bar needs to be a bit lower than it is now. Nor am I faulting CUs or SPI clerks, who are simply following the policy as written. I believe that the information I provided should be enough to allow a CU to do a check and report the results, and if they are negative, then I'm glad to offer my sincere apologies to the editor involved -- as long as there aren't other problems, such as in this case, with Mwright1469's biased editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

For some reason, people think policies must be perfect. If amendments are needed, which they are, they should be implemented. People shouldn't reject these ideas or the website will never improve truly. IWI (chat) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

Based on the above, I'm proposing an indef block for User:Mwright1469, per WP:NOTHERE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose So quick to jump to an indef! While Mwright1469's behavior is clearly problematic, I don't see enough evidence to suggest WP:NOTHERE. So far what I see is that they've run headlong into a topic they are passionate about and run afoul of POV pushing. I would not oppose a shorter block--say a week--that would allow cool down time, but not an indef. TelosCricket (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: someone who considers The New Yorker to be a "tabloid" does not appear to appreciate what WP:RS are, which is clearly disruptive: Sources are mostly from the New Yorker, a heavily biased tabloid with an article that does not mention any of its sources and only "alleges" involvement. Source is minimally credible (via edit summary). --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

An article with spelling mistakes from a publisher with sensational headlines? I had hoped we placed a higher standard for evidence. Either way, this is a talk pages discussion, not ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwright1469 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If you think that The New Yorker -- a periodical with a deserved decades-long reputation for fact-checking -- isn't a reliable source, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on the WP:reliable sources noticeboard, where you'll quickly get your hat handed back to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per my replies above. I assumed only admins could vote but seeing that K.e.coffman has voted, I will as well. -Mwright1469 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The "oppose" vote above was made by the subject of the proposed block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Mwright1469: Admins can unilaterally pass a saction like an indefinite block (although bans generally must involve the community). What is a bit unseemly is !voting on a motion to block yourself, aas it's generally assumed that you don't want to be blocked. There's nothing in policy against it, but there's a big difference between uninvolved editors expressing opinions and the editor being discussed. It's just not the done thing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BITE. PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm highly suspicious, but I think that you would need proof if you're going to make that sort of an accusation. It's possible the user here is a very careful man. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't see any solid proof of wrongdoing; even after the sweating the editor has been given. This all seems a bit bitey. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose - Problematic? Quite, but an indef is probably not the right thing to do at this stage; I definitely don’t see probable cause for WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 02:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - BMK is right, this user knows a lot about our policies and guidelines, and are probably a sock. I didn’t think this was enough evidence, but how else would they know if they didn’t have another account. Blatantly pointing out "I had to google what a sock is", using the short form as well, is just obviously a lie to make people believe they are clueless (looks like it worked). I highly doubt googling "sock" will show anything to do with a sockpuppet, although I could be wrong. The final nail in the coffin is that they knew exactly where to get confirmed (something an IP editor, who may be somewhat familiar with policies, probably wouldn’t know), straight away. They are also POV pushing in a subtle, disruptive way and I don’t see that they are here for the project's purposes, so they should be blocked. IWI (chat) 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support As Paul Magriel liked to say, "quack quack!". We don't need this dissembling. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Innocent of socking until proven guilty. I've come across many other users who display sock-like behaviour but it is not usual to block until there is either some hard evidence against them or they actually do something wrong. Frankly I don't see how Mwright1469's conduct is worse than that of the editor he's complaining about. Deb (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Writing in assumption Mwright1469 is a new good-faith editor who is not an LTA sock, there is no evidence of socking. It's reasonable for someone to create an account then make two edits and disappear before coming back many years later (i.e. they didn't like using the website at first, found it to be more useful after many years, etc). In the diffs above, BMK said things that would've gotten a newbie blocked indefinitely if they had said it to an experienced editor ("cut the crap", "keep your bullshit to yourself"). In addition to the incivility, BMK made a report here without any evidence for sockpuppetry, justified it by pointing to the flaws of WP:SOCK and was supported by multiple admins who likely had not even reviewed the case adequately (i.e. "Gee, could he have been using another account in 2009?" to an incorrect claim by Shashank5988 below). This is a blatant case of bias against new editors. I don't like the idea of ganging up against someone especially when there's no evidence or proof of their wrongdoings as it makes calling for boomerang a little reasonable. I think Mwright1469 should be unblocked.-- Flooded with them hundreds 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Per WP:ROPE - while I would prefer there to be a more explicit policy on Wikipedia with regard to the dissemination of pseudo-scientific statements WRT the social sciences and humanities (which so often are allowed through on lousy reliable sources) and while I find the opinions of MWright to be atrocious and vexatious, they haven't actually violated WP policy... Yet... and absent proof of sock-puppetry, WP:BITE would suggest we give them a chance to understand Wikipedia's rather unique online culture before indeffing them. Perhaps the already-enacted two-week block will be the warning they need to address some of the nascent behavioural concerns. And if it's not, well... AN/I isn't going anywhere, and this discussion is going to remain in the archive. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - With Cullen's permission, I have reduced the block on Mwright1469 to 48 hours. I doubt that there is any consensus in favour of a longer block. I can think of at least one respected contributor on this project who has had a change of ID without anyone noticing and has turned from his early "challenging" behaviour to become a highly productive and sensible Wikipedian. Let's give this user - whether he's new or not - a second chance. Deb (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• It will be interesting to see if Mwrght1469 keeps up their POV-pushing editing when they come off their block in a couple of days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I feel like I've said these exact words more than once in the past, but here goes: while I think BMK could have approached initial interactions with this user more tactfully and therefore preserved credibility for this filing, I nevertheless feel that their read on the situation is likely accurate. This user's particular blend of gamemanship and posturing on policy are very much indicative of someone who not only has substantial experience with our processes, but also in attempting to subvert them to excuse POV pushing and smear anyone who begins to look too closely at their behaviour as a means of muddying the water. Furthermore, even were I not convinced that this account is likely to be a sock, there are also obvious and profound WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIV, and WP:CIR issues in the nature of their editing and interactions with other contributors. I realize it is a an argument that raises some concerns when we invoke WP:BURO as part of advocating for a block, but I think BMK's argument holds water: I do not think we would be be getting good value for our caution by extending WP:ROPE here. All factors considered, I can support the block here, albeit one which should be notated on the user page to reflect the nature of the discussion here, such that if Mwright wants to slow their role and apply for the WP:standard offer a little down the line, we can allow them a second chance at that point. I just don't think shorter term blocks are likely to arrest the substantial issues here. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I think BMK's reading of the situation is on the mark. The behavior is clear that this is a sleeper POV account. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 comments

I don't know where to register my strong disagreement with the indef block. An indef block was proposed. It was recognized there was no consensus in the discussion. One admin (who said there was no consensus for an indef block) imposed a 2-week block. A second admin reduced that to 48 hours. The reducing admin advised the editor not to approach contentious topics. The editor agreed to do so on their talk page. Then a third admin comes in and–poof–indef block! How are things run here? By rule of the last-acting admin? Admin should be discussing how to proceed and acting with consensus, not tripartite wheel-warring with "communicating" via blocks. The first two admin did discuss things with each other; but the third admin's actions, overruling everybody else, seems rather ham-fisted. Levivich (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, this is not wheel warring by any reasonable definition. I openly said from the beginning that I would not object if another adminstrator modified my block. And I don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 You said that, but I didn't see the second admin say that, and it is the second admin's block which has now been extended indefinitely, is it not? Anyway, I take your point that I am misusing the term–I don't presume to know what "wheel warring" means better than anyone else–so I've struck and rephrased my comment accordingly. I don't mean to accuse anyone of breaking any actual rules. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Deb can comment if she wishes, and the blocked editor is welcome to appeal the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I avoided wheel warring by not immediately undoing the block imposed by User:JzG. Why was it impossible for him to inform me in advance that he intended to overrule the result of my discussion with Cullen328?Deb (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bold edits and bold admin actions often break through problems at Wikipedia. JzG is correct that Mwright1469 is an obvious sleeper sock with an unhelpful interest in topics related to gender and race. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, I ask "Please show us some evidence" instead of vague statements that he is an obvious sleeper or sock. Deb (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Challenging the decision to close the discussion and re-block User:Mwright1469

The following discussion is closed. 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:JzG has taken the decision to close a discussion at which there was clearly no consensus for an indefinite block on this user (proposed by User:K.e.coffman). As far as I can see, no one contacted the user to inform him that the proposal to block him indefinitely was even being made, although he subsequently contributed to the discussion. Mwright1469 was defended by multiple editors who pointed out that no actual evidence of wrongdoing had been presented against him. User:Beyond My Ken, who identified him as a sock, also stated that he did not have enough evidence for an SPI investigation. I discussed this with User:Cullen328, who had imposed a two-week block, and who accepted my request to reduce the block. I placed advice on Mwright1469's Talk page as to his future conduct. A few hours later, I found that JzG, who had not previously been involved, took the decision to close the ongoing discussion before any conclusion had been reached and to impose an indefinite block, without informing or consulting me. When I queried this, he replied that "this is a Gamergate clone" but has declined to provide any evidence for this statement. This closure, although not against the letter of procedure, does go against our AGF and behavioral guidelines as well as against consensus, and I'm disappointed in JzG for taking this cavalier attitude. I could, of course, lift the block myself, but I won't do that, for the same reason that JzG should not have imposed this block in the first place. It's against the spirit of the procedures for closure and for dealing with other administrators. Deb (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Good block. @Deb: Have you dealt with sleeper socks? Did you get involved during the Gamergate fiasco? Have you seen the many sleepers being used to post nonsense at WP:ANI? Sleepers don't come with a badge. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Deb's good faith does her great credit, but for me this is pretty clear: we saw hundreds of accounts like this at the peak of GamerGate, and many of them caused much drama before finally being banned. It is ridiculously unlikely that this user has not been using another account, based on edit summaries. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it that you can't point to another one? Why is it that you can't raise an SPI? Deb (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Check the summaries and edits, Deb. Someone with basically no prior edits doesn't use proprietorial language like "We prefer secondary sources. Please review WP:NOR for clarification" in an obvious GamerGate context. Summaries like "First sentence is unsourced, last two sentences are entirely based on the conclusion of primary research. We prefer secondary sources, primary in this case is not acceptable as per WP:NOR - discuss on talk page please" do not speak of less than 3 days of active editing. I judge, from the tendentious editing and combative edit summaries indicating long experience of Wikipedia, that this is (a) not the user's only account and (b) not a genuine good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. And I think that is all I am going to say on this, because digging in would be less good than sitting back and letting other people decide. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• [BMK] also stated that he did not have enough evidence for an SPI investigation

• No he didn't, he said "you cannot file an SPI report without naming a master, and I have no master to name", which is NOT the same thing at all.--Calton | Talk 12:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely the same thing. Deb (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Baloney. It's a bureaucratic hoop, not a statement of a lack of evidence. That you would conflate the two in your posting about BMK -- deliberately or otherwise -- and immediately blame BMK for what appears to be YOUR error in the collapsed section below has got me wondering about your inconsistent application of AGF. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • This is bordering on a personal attack. And "baloney" is not an argument. Deb (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusing and probably not that important

It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has altered the content of this section and created an additional section above, thus affecting the flow of the discussion. Why did you do that, BMK? Deb (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) It is quite possible that my edits, which were meant to be non-controversial housekeeping [351], caused some confusion. I am completely open to any solution, feel free to rearrange comments of needed. My apologies if indeed my edits were confusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) It confused me, anyway - but I'm easily confused. :-) Deb (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC) (ec) Actually, Deb, you altered the flow of discussion. The first section above are comments made immediately after the closing by JzG, beginning with the one from Levivich at 00:40, 3 January 2019. This discussion continued until Johnuniq's comment at 01:09, 3 January 2019. Then, some 8 hours later, at 09:17, 3 January 2019, you inserted a new header and your comment (beginning "User:JzG has taken the decision to close a discussion"} above Levivich's, instead of after Jonuniq's, thus messing up the chronology. This version of AN/I shows the state of the thread immediately before your comment, with Levivich's comment coming after the closing by Guy, and ending with Johnuniq's comment beginning "Bold edits and bold admin actions often break through problems at Wikipedia." This diff shows you inserting your new section and comment immediately after the "abot" statement, that is before Levivich's comment Your edit created this version of AN/I. I merely restored the correct chronology, where your new section comes after Johnuniq's comment in the prvious section. My only substantive change was to add a header for the comments made immediately after the closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Looking at Ymblanter's edit, it seems that you (Deb) intended the new material to be a whole new section, and Ymblanter changed it from level 2 to level 3, but if you intended that, you still put it in the wrong place, after the "abot" which closed the previous sections, but before Levivich's post-closing comment. It still should have gone after Johnuniqs comment, which ended that thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, I created a new section, with a header, directly under the one that I was addressing. I didn't see Levivich's comment because it wasn't in a section. However, the subsequent edits relating to the same issue are now in the earlier section. Deb (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here (I think) is that User:JzG and User:Johnuniq have both, at some time in the past, been involved in discussions over something called GamerGate and both believe that User:Mwright1469 is a sleeper-sock created for reasons relating to the GamerGate discussions. It's difficult for the rest of us to understand why it's not possible to point to comparable edits so as to demonstrate the perceived similarity between the edits of accounts blocked as a result of "GamerGate" and the ones made by Mwright1469. If one real example had been shown, rather than simply a statement that "we just know from experience", my approach to this incident would be different. At the moment I'm not even seeing how this example quoted by JzG is racist. Deb (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, Mwright1469 is  Unrelated to any other currently active account, and data doesn't reveal any reason why we should not take them at their word regarding their history. Absent any other evidence that this account is a sleeper sock, which should include diffs, the editor should be evaluated on their recent edits and behaviour, not their supposed connection to other bad actors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• That being said, I agree (and observed earlier) that Mwright1469's edits in these contentious topics do appear to come with a POV agenda; whether that's related to the agendas of past bad actors I cannot say, but I also agree there are recurring themes here. I declined to impose an Arb-enforcement topic ban at that time, but after our short conversation they continued talking down to and casting aspersions against Beyond My Ken (e.g. [352]) and clearly went go out of their way to interfere with BMK's edits in other topics ([353]). Because the areas that they seem to want to edit will not tolerate their agenda and attitude, I now suggest that the current indefinite block be commuted to a topic ban from abortion (WP:ARBAB) and gender politics including GamerGate (WP:ARBGG), and a one-way interaction ban from Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would certainly support that as an alternative. Deb (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Like Guy, I too don't see a genuine good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia from Mwright1469. From their editing of Turning Point USA and its talkpage, they look to me like a tendentious editor not only as regards abortion and gender politics, but also in the American politics arena. So, should we impose a three-topic topic ban plus a one-way IBAN..? Too intricate? Perhaps. I prefer an indef block, myself, with the option to appeal in six months. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
• For the record, I am fine with a TBAN if that's the view of the assembled multitude. My concerns are entirely about the chronic waste of good faith Wikipedians' time by agenda editors on these topics. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• If you don't know what GamerGate is, please read the entire article carefully before forming an opinion. These are really nasty people who are out to harass women online. When weighing the magnitude of potential harm against the risk of a false positive, that's something to consider. An indef block stops the user from having that account. They can always go quietly create a new account, after some time passes, and edit peacefully if they are actually a good faith user. The indef just slows them down a bit. Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're suggesting that we have to be involved in the issues in order to assess whether a block is appropriate; I think it's better to be impartial. I've already said I will support a topic ban, which ought to be good enough if the only problem is tendentious editing. Deb (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Mwright1469 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - links to aid scrutiny
  • They've tripped the edit filter twice.
  • In 2013 the user starts by making two trivial edits, and then this [354] is their third edit ever. New user? Really? Not new user.
  • Then, in 2018, about 5 years 8 months later, this is the fourth edit ever. [355]
  • I agree that this is a sleeper sock. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• People create sleepers thinking they might use them later. I listed some of the sleepers activated by a single person to troll ANI—a pathetic aim, yet they thought it worth burning over 30 accounts that mostly never edited since creation roughly two years ago. See my sandbox (permalink). The telltale sign of a returned user is the attitude they bring with them—why would a new user battle experienced editors? Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll have a look. Deb (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly echo Deb's comments that we should have evidence of sock-puppetry before banishing an editor for that reason. If you want to bring on some sanctions for POV, then by all means take that route. But I'm wondering if the evidence in that regard is not strong enough, hence the sock accusation. RandomGnome (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Said an account that registered on Dec 24, 2018 and has fewer than 20 edits. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, that's a comment and approach I find unbecoming of an admin. Yes, I have edited Wikipedia before irregularly as an IP and am somewhat familiar with a few of the policies (how could you not be, considering how one is pounced on by experienced editors citing this or that WP). If you're making a back-door accusation that I'm a sock, I guess you'll have to go in search for evidence. Although sadly, evidence apparently doesn't seem to matter too much around here when instituting indefinite bans. RandomGnome (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And you immediately found your way here as Defender of the Defenseless. Cool story. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Another accusing editor with no evidence of my misconduct. Not surprised that you would also indefinitely ban someone with....no evidence. It's not a particularly cool story but it's the true one: I have edited Wikipedia minimally and irregularly with ever-changing (ISP actioned) IPs. This is not a crime, or against policy here. Though it clearly appears to transgress some kind of moral code among the small club of regulars who can't seem to understand that the majority of people are not glued to Wikipedia 24/7/365. I apologize for the faux pas, but until you have actionable evidence, please quit the accusations, because you are helping to make this place incredibly unwelcoming and cliquey. RandomGnome (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a sleeper sock, as it pretty much checks all the boxes. --Calton | Talk 12:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: You commented that They've tripped the edit filter twice, which is true, but it's also worth noting that neither edit that tripped an edit filter was problematic. One was a grammatical error that was corrected. The other was removing a duplicate reference and was immediately followed by the addition of a cross-reference in its place. I have no idea if this is a sleeper sock or not and express no opinion on the appropriate action, but I do think it is fair to note that neither edit tripping an edit filter was actually problematic. Both were appropriate / acceptable edits and offer no basis for criticism. Did you examine the edits before noting above that edit filters have been tripped? EdChem (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  You'll notice that my statement was that they had tripped the edit filter twice. True. I did not assert that this was something wrong. It's under a heading of "scrutiny", not "wrongdoing". Thank you for taking a deeper dive. That was sort of the point for my calling out the edit filter activity. I've tripped the edit filter way more than two times. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I raised this discussion because I felt that the previous closure was inappropriate. So far, virtually no one has addressed that question. Deb (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  The outcome is being re-evaluated. Is that what you were requesting? Or do you want to somehow sanction the editor who made an improper closure? What outcome are you looking for? Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I feel that the closure was appropriate. It occurred because Mwright1469 had been blocked indefinitely by JzG. Since the discussion started, more problematic editing came to light; for example, his last mainspace edit before the block was to troll BMK via an edit summary: I don't know Beyond My Ken, I think some people would want to see a citation for this. While blocked, 1467 continued with posts on their Talk page, describing how he had been wronged, without acknowledging his disruption: [356], [357].

This is either too practised (trolling) or too entitled (lack of a learning curve). Neither is suggestive that the user would be a productive member of the community. As I understand, TBans and IBans are designed for editors who are otherwise a net-positive but have issues with a particular topic or with a particular editor. Pretty much all of 1467's edits have been disruptive in some way. If someone needs three topic bans and a one-way interaction ban to edit here, that's a problem. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Question/proposals: Jehochman closed a "Proposal:Indef block" section writing "This is unseemly. We do not take votes to decide whether to block a user." Other indef block proposals have not been similarly closed, including the indef proposal in this thread, and this indef block proposal, which was closed by Swarm, writing "Per a strong consensus, [user] is indefinitely blocked, and by extension, indefinitely site banned by the community." Other proposals, for tbans, ibans, etc., seem to be permitted at ANI. I don't know what's right or wrong and I express no opinion; I only raise the question because I hope I am not breaking any rules by posting the questions below, which are basically a series of alternative proposals (though more than one could be adopted). My hope is that making specific potential proposals for editors to discuss will help clarify consensus, and that in turn will help bring this dispute, and this thread, to a close. If the wording of the proposals is not good, I ask other editors to edit and improve them. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Leave indef block in place, close this thread

Should this thread be closed, and indefinite block remain in place until/unless Mwright1469 makes a successful {unblock} request? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because I support some of the alternatives below. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because there are better solutions. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support per Coffman and other above. The user was not indeffed because he looked like a sock. He was indeffed for NOTHERE based POV pushing. I was originally opposed to an indeff, but based on his continued posts on his talk page, he's not getting the message. So, indeff with ability to maybe come back later. TelosCricket (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month Topic ban

Should Mwright1469 be topic banned from abortion and gender politics (including GamerGate) for one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because I don't think it will be effective. If the user is a "troll," for lack of a better word, they will just troll in another area. If the user is not a troll, we will have prevented a new user from editing in their preferred area. I don't see enough evidence (diffs) of problematic edits in a particular area (or any connection to GG for that matter). The diffs raised thus far are, in my view, not problematic. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support if two-way interaction ban cannot be agreed. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month Two-way interaction ban

Should Mwright1469 and Beyond My Ken be subject to a two-way interaction ban of one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support as this seems to be primarily a dispute between two users, both of whom, in my view, have said sharp things towards one another. I think "go to your respective corners" will help calm the waters. I note Mwright, on their talk page, has indicated they would voluntarily agree to this; BMK, on Mwright's talk page, has said he would not voluntarily agree to this (User talk:Mwright1469#Your block). Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - as well as Mwright1469's thoughtless editing, there has been a lot of goading and provocation - mostly from those who think they are supporting BMK but in fact are merely aggravating the situation. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1-Month One-way interaction ban

Should Mwright1469 be subject to a one-way interaction ban against Beyond My Ken, or should Beyond My Ken be subject to a one-way interaction ban against Mwright1469, of one month (or some other duration)? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose any one-way interaction ban, because it would embolden the editor who was not subject to the ban by condoning or endorsing their behavior. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons summarised by Levivich.Deb (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock and warn

Should Mwright1469 be unblocked, with or without a warning? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Mwright has already been blocked for several days now. They initially posted responses to their talk page, but when advised to stop [358], they stopped, even deleting those responses [359]. I see this as compliance with community norms, a willingness and ability to change their behavior in response to input from other editors. I don't see any way that we can differentiate a good new editor from a NOTHERE editor, other than to let them edit and see what happens. I think a two-way iban, and this multi-day block, is enough of a "warning," and we should now give the editor a chance. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support as my preferred course of action, since the only possible proof is in the pudding. If Mwright1469 does not respect the decision of the community, I'll be happy to block him myself. Deb (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary

The following discussion is closed. 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 author of this multi-part proposal recently filed a request for arbitration, which was quickly declined with suggestions to the OP of avoiding unnecessary drama: Requests for arbitration: Sockpuppet allegations. Perhaps TBan Levivich from participating in administrative noticeboards unless the matter directly concerns them. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That reasoning would exclude you from participating in this discussion as well. Deb (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've not recently filed a RFAR that was declined 0 to 8: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Really, this is going too far. Are you suggesting that the RFAR has a direct bearing on the incident onto which you have tacked your comment? I hate to say it, but it looks like you are trying to cloud the issue simply because you don't agree with User:Levivich's proposals. And if you don't think any of them are suitable, why not make some alternative suggestions? Deb (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Stricken. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin ignoring BLP Issues

There was an on-going discussion on the BLP noticeboard regarding a BLP issue. The one editor, Geo Swan, was unhappy with the discussion not going their way and decided to forum shop and request that the article is protected as there was two other IP editors involved. The protecting admin, Swarm, had decided that the removal of information in line with the BLP policies and supported by the BLP noticeboard are vandalism and removing BLP violations from an article is not acceptable. An IP editor has requested admin transparency from Swarm and was blown off [[360]]. I am sorry but this behavior is unacceptable from a long established admin. 104.249.231.176 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not call Swarm's detailed response a case of "blown off". That makes this complaint pretty weak. I've notified Swarm of your post here - which you are supposed to do when you start an ANi thread about an editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor was correct to stubify a version of the Mathew L. Golsteyn which contained BLP violations (negative claims not referenced to any sources). Their later removal of material and stubification after referencing concerns had been addressed was unhelpful, but I think was done in good faith. There was general agreement at WP:BLPN#Mathew L. Golsteyn that the article is not consistent with WP:BLP, and I've taken it to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn) where there is also currently agreement that the article is not sustainable on BLP grounds, so the IP is correct to still be concerned about the article. The editor (Geo Swan) who requested protection has been ignoring these concerns, despite having sought advice on my talk page and at WP:BLPN. Their report at WP:RFPP [361] ignored these concerns and contained falsehoods - especially the claim that "no one tried to defend the excision, on BLP grounds" - I did so in my first response to the discussion Geo Swan started on my talk page [362] and later at BLPN [363]. Swarm failed to do their homework before applying protection here. I've started a discussion with them on their talk page regarding their incorrect claim that I hadn't explained my concerns. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor should also register an account if they're concerned with things like this - Swarm or others could use that account's talk page to ask them to stop making unhelpful edits instead of protecting the page. It simply isn't possible for admins to discuss issues with editors operating from dynamic IPs. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't see how you can call this a "removal of negative unsourced content", anyone can see that 15 separate references were deleted. I read the discussion at BLPN, and on your talk page, and on mine, and the article talk page, and I don't see anyone having pointed out any content that is unsourced, and if there is any, obviously it should be removed. You were asked what unsourced content you were referring to, and you refused to specify. If the negative unsourced content is so obvious that you refuse to even specify what it is when asked, then I don't see why you don't just remove it. You're a confirmed editor, you can still edit the article, and it's not even considered edit warring. You really should remove it, if you have identified such content. But, I don't see blanking a thoroughly-sourced article, per "unspecified unsourced BLP vios" being a credible course of action, even if done in good faith, which I don't doubt that it is. This was just some random RfPP report I actioned, I certainly have no dog in this fight, and if I could see something that I overlooked, I would certainly have no problem apologizing and reversing myself. But, just saying "BLP vio" does not automatically give you permission to make any edit you want, and on its face, I don't see it, and neither will anyone else if you refuse to specify what the BLP vio is beyond "it's obvious".  Swarm  {talk}  23:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the IP editor's initial edits, where they removed unsourced negative content. This was later sourced - hence why I'm saying that their subsequent changes were unhelpful. However, they weren't unreasonable (hence why I've taken the article to AfD, which seems the better course of action at this point), and I think that you missed the context. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so you mean the first blanking, where the IP specifically stated that they were "stubbing out the article" in response to the statement that the victim was "taken off base", alleging that "NY Times says bomb maker was released, not taken off base". So, they blanked an entire article, deleting nine inline citations, over one claim that supposedly failed verification. However, if you look at the source the IP is referring to, it says: Major Golsteyn ... concerned that the man, if released, would kill American troops ... took him off the base, shot and killed him, ... [Army] documents say. The IP was either wrong, or misrepresenting the source intentionally. Granted, the citation was after the first sentence, rather than at the end of the paragraph, which did make that particular claim appear unsourced, and if the IP had just removed that specific claim, erroneously thinking that it was unsourced, that would forgivable. But, not only was there a source, but the IP was aware of the source, and they actually read the source, and then blanked the whole article, reliably-sourced content and all, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the source said. That's the only specific allegation of "negative claims not referenced to any sources", and it's wrong. So, I'm still not sure what "BLP violations (negative claims not referenced to any sources)" you're saying the IP was correct in removing.  Swarm  {talk}  02:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've only looked at the diff linked to by Swarm, but yeah, that's not "removing negative unsourced material". And yeah, I'd go so far as to call their removal "unreasonable". Deleting something for "reason X" when reason X isn't true is unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:CRYBLP. We understand that you don't like the fact that mainstream media is less than enchanted by Goldsteyn's actions or Trump's mooted pardon. That is not our problem to fix. Sources like the Washington Post and New York Times are solid. Washington Times not so much - so maybe focus on nuking Washington Times and other unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mountain157

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be signs of a problem. To get to the bottom of it, file a concise enforcement request at WP:AE and include diffs of exemplary edits. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Pages:Frontier Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mar4d made multiple reversions of properly sourced edits that I made to the articles,Taliban, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and Frontier Corps. I want to refrain from reversing the edits out of fear that it can turn into an edit-war. Examples of the user's reverts are:

1. [364] "Rv addition of poorly sourced content back to good version"] (Deciding what he HIMSELF considers "poorly sourced content")
2. [365] "Restore stable version and trimmed off unreliable references"] (Making my additions look bad and forcing his edit through)
3. [366] "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account"] (Making unproven accusations which violates WP:NPA)

Can someone look into Mar4d? Mountain157 (talk 10:12 28 December 2018

• NO -- your complaint fails because you didn't include proper diffs to succinctly demonstrate a problem. Look at the 3-tier diff and link help articles I've posted on the top right of this thread. A nebulous complaint leads to a long and wasteful thread. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Lots of commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a misunderstanding. This is a place to request an administrator to solve a problem. It's not a place to continue fighting about editorial disagreements. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Mountain157 - There are guidelines and past discussions that have decided exactly which sources are considered reliable and which are not. If you haven't gone through and made sure to understand Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, I highly recommend that you do so. You also did not notify Mar4d of this ANI discussion involving him as required and stated in the notice on the top of this page. I've done this for you. :-)

I'll also add a comment and state for the record that Mar4d is indefinitely topic banned from "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed", and that he was "warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning" (diff of notice, enforcement log entry). Whether or not these edits are attempting to push that edge is yet to be determined, but Mar4d should know by know that extreme caution and care should be taken regarding edits in these topics. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Taliban and Frontier Corps certainly skirt the topic ban. It is well known and documented in the article that Pakistani intelligence agencies have supported the Taliban for decades while India has opposed the Taliban vigorously. Similarly, the Frontier Corps is a Pakistani paramilitary group operating on its frontier with Afghanistan and is functionally equivalent to the paramilitary Pakistan Rangers who operate on the Eastern frontier with India. If this editor continues to test the boundaries of their topic ban, then perhaps it is time to expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed. If necessary to prevent disruption, we could add Islam and Hinduism to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Thank for for commenting here. I'm no expert or professional in regards to these topics or conflicts between India and Pakistan, so this was extremely helpful. I appreciate it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Removals made on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Frontier Corps are almost same. I am mostly concerned this edit which involved contributions by three editors.[367][368][369] At the time when Mar4d reverted this, it was neutrally written and used TOLOnews as a source which is not an unreliable source. Mar4d's removal of the edit and explanation: "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account" shows poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA, the same behavior that resulted in topic ban on him from conflicts between India and Pakistan.[370]
  As for the testing of boundaries of topic ban, I would note that Mar4d made this edit this month, where he added "Kashmir=yes" into Wikiproject and since Kashmir is the major concern in "conflict between India and Pakistan" Mar4d could avoid this edit. Another example would be these edits[371][372] because Pakistan continues to allege India of being involved in Insurgency in Balochistan by funding the Balochistan militants. Sections on Balochistan Liberation Army#Foreign involvement and Insurgency in Balochistan#India describes this and India has at least morally supported the Balochistan fighters. I would also remind that Mar4d was already blocked once for topic ban violation and unblocked after he promised not to violate the topic ban again.[373]
  The edit on Al-Qaeda is also concerning where Mar4d claims that he thoroughly checked the whole edit. Here Mar4d removed the part "by the Pakistani ISI to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later on against India" and this part concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan". The added source from NYTimes was even more explicit with saying "or against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir". Lorstaking (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have reverted other contributions from User:Mountain157 before User:Mar4d did such as [374] [375] [376] [377] and I have explained it vigorously here Talk:Haqqani_network#Original_Research Talk:2017–18_North_Korea_crisis#Original_Research Talk:Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)#Original_Research. I've assumed good faith since the OP is a new user and I have invested time and explained to him Wikipedia policies extensively in his talk page and endured him accusing me of being "sponsored by Pakistan" etc etc.. until someone came along, decided it wasn't worth it, and reported him for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive381#User:Mountain157_reported_by_User:TheTimesAreAChanging_(Result:_48h) and got him blocked for 48 hours for gaming the system. I urged him to make amendments instead of confirming controversial claims and to discuss before reverting. To be fair, he did stop edit warring on those articles. However, I am concerned of the POV style editing the OP is using mainly relying on WP:OR and WP:FRINGE to make "sourced" contributions. He has also opened a sockpuppet investigation on an IP address who was also reverting some of his controversial changes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92. This seems to me like revenge directed moves and amounts to OP shooting himself in the foot. Just my two cents. I am not interested in taking part of this ANI so please ping me for any questions, will be happy to answer. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wikiemirati: You are absolutely right about Mountain157, who engaged in POV editing but has stopped a bit since the block. I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92 was a revenge move because it concerns a block evader. You should see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek9779/Archive and even Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy/Archive. Same IPs (5.36..) have been also reported there and were range blocked for socking in this same subject. Mountain157 don't know this because he is a newbie. I have also commented there. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm not familiar with those topics so I don't know who edit them or who was blocked or w/e. I don't know if OP knows that or not, but he did open an ANI on someone who reverted him Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:Anonymous17771 who turned out to be Abhishek9779 sock (from a separate investigation though). Worth to mention too, that he opened an ANI after the sock opened his own ANI on OP Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:_Mountain157 but got banned before he could take it anywhere. The sock is banned like he should be. However, all of this screams to me like someone who's revenge targeting people who reverted him. I am not familiar with those users or the user mentioned here, but I can't help but also scrutinize OP edits and behavior. WP:BOOMERANG. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Revenge targeting people"? I actually can't help but notice alot of double standards coming from you. In fact you were targeting me at first and now you are coming on here and trying to make me look like the "bad one". I simply reported the sock and Mar4d because they happened to be engaging in behavior that defines edit-warring.-Mountain157 talk 3:50 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

He has just opened an edit warring notice against me now [378]. While I acknowledge everyone's right to an opinion, I don't think this behavior is very appropriate and amounts to outright battle behavior WP:BATTLE. Wikiemirati (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. I'll try to keep this in summary form. I was first notified of the issues regarding Mountain157's edits only after someone posted a message on my talk drawing attention, and I'll basically second what Wikiemirati and several other users [379] [380] (TheTimesAreAChanging etc.) who have posted on Mountain157's talk and elsewhere have recently said about their edits. I am convinced this user is not here to build the encyclopedia, and the sourcing issues that I found are unfortunately the tip of the iceberg. Let's leave the sources for a minute. As per the admin Black Kite who [381] blocked Mountain157 for disruptive editing only days after he created his account, it is both alarming and concerning when the user isn't able to distinguish between what reliable, mainstream academic sources are, and what opinion editorials, and speculation pieces are, to add highly contentious claims as facts across not a few but dozens of articles and sections.

I don't think this user has developed quite a grasp yet, or shown intent to develop an understanding ever since the endless notices left by others on their talk page, about core guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and I can back my statement with convincing evidence. I hope they will read this. This is one of many examples. Now on to the Frontier Corps page, Mountain157 made their first edit on 16 December [382]; here, he first added a section "support for terrorism", which is an issue itself since the text he adds immediately below it is reporting about an allegation being made; secondly, the text added by the user conclusively states the FC is involved in "backing ISIS" which is akin to stating in fact whilst reporting that same allegation, and thirdly, their choice of source is none other than an Afghan government official. The matter doesn't end here as the user went on to claim that the FC is involved militarily in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), on the basis of this single source, which is itself problematic given in Wikipedia's language, "exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources". I did not see that being fulfilled in any of his edits, to be frank.

On the Taliban page, Mountain157 added Pakistan in the "ally" section, again improperly sourced to a news article reporting an Afghan official's statements. Again, the user needs to display a more prominent understanding of how to source claims which require impartial, reliable references. On to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, the user made several additions again improperly sourced to primary references and opinion pieces, adding multiple countries as "allies" without verification, which had to be reverted by another user here. And again, the same glaring issues with sourcing are there i.e. primary refs, statements by government officials, editorial pieces [383], and improper attribution to allegations. I'm happy to answer further questions, but that being said I will certainly like to draw attention to the issues with the edits concerned, as I believe the user needs to show more understanding of some core guidelines.

Finally, Lorstaking's involvement here and defense of Mountain157's edits is also a cause for concern and needs to be reviewed impartially; he for instance misleadingly claims that Mountain157 "stopped a bit" with regard to their "POV editing" since the block, but his only edits ever since the block got lifted have been this, this fresh ANI section, or an SPI. All this from an apparent "newbie" who we are all supposed to believe first edited Wikipedia on 13 December 2018. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will repeat what multiple other editors have been saying. You are engaging in talking about the actions of others.There are serious concerns by the other editors about you making POV edits on topics that have to do with India and Pakistan. In fact you yourself are banned indefinetely from, "all edits and pages related to India and Pakistan, broadly construed". Oh and by the way multiple sources from ToloNews document Pakistani Frontier Corps forces backing ISIS in Afghanistan. Same thing goes for the Taliban, numerous sources for decades have pointed to Pakistani support. Lastly I find it very mean spirited for you to go after Lorstaking for simply defending me which any editor on Wikipedia has the right to do.-Mountain157 (talk) 10:40 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d's explanations only discuss actions of others including the OP who is currently not engaging in any blockable offense. Mar4d has ignored the concerns about his edits raised by at least 4 editors, 2 of them are uninvolved admins. The edit on Al-Qaeda was obviously a topic ban violation as evidenced above. Since Mar4d didn't even cared enough about addressing these obvious topic ban violation/s, I think we certainly have no option except to "expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed", like Cullen238 has suggested here. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Mar4d's edits, his TBAN, or any violations and I am not heavily involved in Pakistan-India topics nor do I know him, but I have made a similar, yet not identical, revert in Al Qaeda page [384] as well as two other users [385] and [386] who all reverted the OP. This is just my opinion. As it seems I am no longer a neutral party to this discussion (Thanks to OP opening another notice board against me). I think it's best I leave this ANI discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

People are concerned that why Mar4d is reverting Mountain157 in these topic areas when he is already aware that these reverts constitute violation of his present topic ban. His failure to address these concerns pretty much speaks it all. I know that there must be issues with the editing of Mountain157 and there are no objections to your reverts, but given he is a newbie some rope is essentially warranted. Where as if we evaluate Mar4d's conduct, then I would also support expansion of topic ban to cover the whole WP:ARBIPA(Afghanistan, India, Pakistan). Orientls (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Mountain157 opened a edit warring claim against Wikiemirati; I pointed out to them that it might be best to withdraw it given that they had reverted more times than the editor they were reporting; they have done so. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, and they also chose to paste that same report onto WP:ANI like this thread, right after you advised them to withdraw from AN3. WP:STICKs galore :) Mar4d (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• As always, the topic ban has been misrepresented, extrapolated, and used out of context for articles which have no relation to the original restrictions. For neutral users, I would request reading the text of the TBAN, and what very specific set of articles were defined in that ruling. As for Accesscrawl, Lorstaking and Orientls, keeping in mind their history, these editors had no recent activity on ANI, nor any interaction with this user, let alone significant involvement or edits to the articles in question. Yet all three turned up within hours to essentially repeat each others' allegations. I don't understand how this is really different to another user who tried to unfairly weaponize the TBAN in an unrelated content dispute, and was met with sanctions. I'll leave it for others to decide whether the conduct of these three editors constitutes a similar WP:BATTLE approach, and why they should not be viewed in the same light.

That being said, I was and am absolutely clear on what the TBAN is for, and have abided by it, and if there is content that is covered by it, I genuinely and in good faith follow the recommendations; the articles and source material in question here (Taliban, ISIS, the Frontier Corps unit etc.) are not related to Pakistan's conflict with India in any distant manner. The TBAN in question does not prohibit Pakistan articles, general or otherwise, which is my usual editing area, nor does it cover Afghanistan and all other articles. To claim that a TBAN violation has occurred on articles which neither the ban covers, nor the scope has been touched, and neither the very specific subject of 'conflict with India' has been approached, is baseless. In fact, I'd also like to point to admin BU Rob13, who had elaborately clarified for me and others the actual restrictions the last time the TBAN was weaponised (quote): You are restricted from edits or pages about the conflict, which is actually narrower than a usual topic ban. This page is not about the topic, and neither was your edit, so even if the discussion broaches on the topic, you're very technically fine."

As for the reverts on these three articles, I am quite convinced that the material added by Mountain157 was not fully compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I am not the only user who shares these concerns, as at least six different editors have reverted the user's recent additions across these pages, and some have left notices on their talk. Why and based on what intent this ANI came out of is beyond me, but the WP:BRD process needs to be followed in such cases, and I do believe the reasons I put forth regarding the problems identified with Mountain157's sources and content continue to remain valid, and many others would concur. Thanks all, Mar4d (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You just violated your topic ban again by talking about a topic ban of other editor which happens to be same as your own topic ban. You are not allowed to discuss a topic ban of other editor when it happens to be same as your own topic ban. Not to forget that your mention of those unrelated events is not addressing your own problematic conduct.

I would also like to debunk your misleading claim that "Accesscrawl, Lorstaking and Orientls....had no recent activity on ANI", because I edited ANI on 23 December and anyone can see a thread opened by Orientls below here on 06:22 29 December. Finally no one has to edit ANI everyday to discuss your obviously problematic conduct.

You violated your topic ban by removing "later on against India" on Al-Qaeda. Why you are still ignoring these concerns? To me this is a clear WP:CIR issue and your battleground mentality speaks volumes. Right now you will only get away with an indef topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but if you continued this uncollaborative approach and bad faith accusations then people will only think about issuing harsher sanctions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl:Thank you for explaining things properly about what is going on. In fact, not only has Mar4d violated the topic ban but he has also committed WP:VANDAL by deleting 2 whole paragraphs regarding alleged Pakistani and Chinese support for Al-Qaeda. Here is the before and after.[[387]] [[388]].-Mountain157 (talk)

• Cullen328's comments strike me as an unreasonably broad reading of the topic ban, which is specifically from the military conflict between Pakistan and India, not other conflicts those two countries are tangentially involved with, nor from a military unit that is functionally equivalent to but distinct from one which might be considered covered by the ban, nor from other organizations which the two countries have taken opposing political stances toward. At least as far as the original complaint, this should not be viewed as a topic ban violation. As for the rest, I find it curious that the original post is from a two-week-old account that waded into one of Wikipedia's most contentious topic areas with their first edits, are already filing reports against previously sanctioned editors repeatedly, and that several of Mar4d's Wikipedia adversaries have again swarmed this thread to agitate for further sanctions for previous infractions. I dislike that I have to say again to Mar4d that they ought to know to be more careful because this group are watching their every move in a way clearly meant to cause distress and/or impede their work which we would call abusive if someone behaved this way toward an editor who wasn't subject to a topic ban. I don't know what the right course of action is here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why this report should not examine the topic ban violation by Mar4d? Mar4d is topic banned from "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed", and that he was "warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning" [389]" (like Oshwah noted). We need to read things as they are and we will find that Cullen328 has been correct with his assessment. Frontier Corps have been directly involved in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1999. While Taliban has involvement in conflicts between India and Pakistan, the source removed by Mar4d discussed both Pakistan and India.[390]

You need to read my comment which includes evidence of Mar4d's poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA.[391] I have also shown that while many of his edits test the edges of topic ban[392][393][394] there are edits where he has clearly violated the topic ban.[395] Now here is another modification from 18 December, where he changed the [[PAF Base Nur Khan|airfield]] to [[PAF Base Nur Khan|airbase]]. PAF Base Nur Khan has been involved in multiple wars between India and Pakistan.

He is discussing topic ban of other editor when he is himself topic banned from that very same topic. He is also requesting topic ban on 3 different editors from conflicts between India and Pakistan by saying "whether the conduct of these three editors .... should not be viewed in the same light", and that too is a textbook violation of his topic ban. Lorstaking (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Setting aside for the moment the suspicious nature of the account making this report, it's unfortunate but unsurprising that this thread has degenerated into the usual mudslinging, with scarcely any independent commentary. Cullen328, I too am concerned by the breadth of your interpretation of the t-ban. The ban as formulated is about the conflict between India and Pakistan. Other editors who received an identical sanction have edited, without being challenged, pages more closely related to this conflict, including the conflict between India and China, Indian weapons purchases, the relative military might of Pakistan, and various Indian and Pakistani politicians. At the AE discussion which resulted in this ban, I recommended a broader IPA t-ban precisely because I was worried the conflict would spill over in this manner; but since a narrower ban was what was chosen, I think it ought not to be selectively broadened.
  Mar4d should know better than to skirt the edges of his tban, but that's about all he's doing; there's no clear cut violation. Posting about his own ban, here, when other users are demanding that he be sanctioned for violating said ban, is not a t-ban violation; it's covered by "necessary dispute resolution", and is permitted explicitly by WP:BANEX. His comments about other editors' behavior are not discussing content edits but conduct here, and do not constitute a topic-ban either. Lorstaking, you were warned about this sort of thing in the same discussion in which Mar4d was t-banned. Dial it back a little, please. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was never even notified of that discussion about which I learned after weeks, let alone getting a warning. That never happened.[396] I don't have to dial it back, though you should really work on your understanding of sanctions and topic ban scope. The "conflict between India and China, Indian weapons purchases... Indian and Pakistani politicians" are neither more closely related nor they constitute topic ban violation. Mar4d is discussing topic ban of other editor and that is outside the scope of "his own ban". You should also consider replying the question asked below. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban can be broadened for any user who is frequently failing to understand it and here Mar4d is the only editor who is guilty of that. I just read WP:BANEX and I can see that it does not allow topic banned editor to discuss same topic ban of others and/or ask same topic ban for others. I think you have missed the diff from Al-Qaeda because Mar4d removed the content that read "Harkat- ul- Mujahideen was set up in the 1980's by the Pakistani ISI to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later on against India". You would need a lot better explanation to claim how it is unrelated to the conflict and not a violation of topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Shashank5988, you are misunderstanding me. Of course topic-bans can be expanded if necessary; what is inappropriate is a block under a greatly expanded interpretation of the original topic ban. That diff is unimpressive; it's a massive revert which happened to include a tangential reference to this conflict. It's not ideal, because as I said before, Mar4d is skirting his tban, and really should be staying far away from such topics: but it'd hardly sanction-worthy in and of itself. Lorstaking, the AE discussion was closed with the comment "Lorstaking [...] should note that some have found their participation on noticeboards [...] to be disruptive and I advise them to go careful in the future." That it wasn't logged doesn't make it something you should ignore. Vanamonde (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• A "comment" and "warning" are two really different concepts. Why Mar4d should stay "far away" from these subjects when he is never going to get sanctioned and we are going to keep ignoring the original sanction which allows blocks/tban for skirting the tban?Thanks for accepting that there was a topic ban violation but this user has already responded several times and rejected this as violation as non-violation and pledged to continue these edits. Together with the provided edit summary,[397] the violation of a broadly construed topic ban is not justifiable. If we are saying that Mar4d was editing without reading then issue is clearly more serious than simply violating a topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: limited interaction bans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing the discussion, per withdrawal by Ivan. Anybody may feel free to float V93's idea over a separate thread. Thankfully, ∯WBG^converse 14:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

What should have been a simple thread about evaluating a topic ban question has been derailed again by the same set of editors insisting on dredging out all manner of supposed wrongdoing and exotic definitions of the original sanction. As demonstrated here, if they fail to get sanctions in one venue, they will try again later or on some other noticeboard. It's been noted by many users that these same editors keep repeating this behaviour whenever the sanction is discussed, they have been warned that it is disruptive, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge the warnings. I therefore propose that Lorstaking and Accesscrawl be banned from commenting on any aspect of the original sanction and from commenting on any discussion of the conduct of any of the editors who have been sanctioned under it. This is to ensure the smooth operation of the project (so that when these discussions are necessary they can reach a clear and rational conclusion without their obfuscating interference) and to relieve the sanctioned editors from the burden of editing under continuous disruptive scrutiny by battleground editors, which has been an ongoing undesireable side-effect of this sanction. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not wage war against our enemies.

The original arbitration enforcement restriction is documented here.

Lorstaking was warned in the close of that discussion that their behaviour towards the sanctioned editors was viewed as disruptive.

Accesscrawl was separately warned here for, among a laundry list of complaints, "endless bludgeoning" and "battleground, ownership, and other disruptive behaviours"; they challenged the warning but it was upheld on review. Not satisfied with that, they challenged the concept of logging a warning at all (Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#WP:ER/UC).

Examples of users noting this pattern of disruption: [398] [399] - these examples are difficult to pin down as they occur in discussions which are not about these two users, but discussions about other users they've jumped into.

• Support as proposer. Note that several other editors have been warned about similar behaviour related to this sanction and WP:ARBIPA in general but have not continued, showing that it is possible for an editor not to behave this way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as bad faith distraction. No diffs provided for allegations either. I note that Ivanvector has been tirelessly defending banned disruptive editors of this area such as NadirAli, Nauriya, Son of Kolachi, and others. It has been a battleground mentality of Ivanvector to side disruption of "one side" while seek baseless sanctions on "other side". This includes a spurious ARE report filed by Ivanvector against one editor of "other side", and now this spurious proposal.

Even if you want to say that it is not a case then why in place of seeking sanction for obvious topic ban violation and long term disruption by Mar4d, why you are you asking us to WP:CENSOR the observers who made this case look more clear? I recommend you to withdraw this. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as non-issue and in the light of more appropriate proposal which resolves the actual concern of the thread. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: This is a good idea (the amount of mudslinging on the admin noticeboards has become quite ridiculous) but I think your proposal is a little too complicated, and would be too difficult to administer. I think this nonsense may be best dealt with by preventing these users (and I include Mar4d in this) from participating in ANI discussions about each other; or, at best, by allowing them to report violations, but not to discuss them. Unfortunately this thread has been so swamped by pointless argument that the possibility of any sanction arising from it is miniscule. Vanamonde (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seems factually misleading. It is not wikihounding if editors are presenting concrete evidence of disruption. It is considered as wikihounding when a person disrupts the articles and discussions only to disrupt contributions of other editor. Similarly, proposing interaction ban while asking users to stop commenting on others conduct are two really different concepts. I can tell how you are seeing the things because of your deep involvement in the past similar discussions but unless you have evidence that someone is falsifying diffs, then only something can be considered. At this moment I am not seeing any problem  but that valid concerns have been raised by these users. Why we should not expect a few editors to show up when the reported editor is editing for nearly 10 years? We should. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support to stop this "disruptive scrutiny by battleground editors" as long as it does not include Mar4d. He has done nothing wrong by keeping a check on Mountain157 who is probably someone's sock.— Bukhari (Talk!) 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the i-ban on the two editors named by Ivanvector, for displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:NOTHERE behaviour.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose First, I do not see any notification to the two editors that they are subject of a sanction discussion. There's a soft peddled notice that there is an ANI thread they may be involved in. They may have commented in this thread, but there's no guarantee they are still following it, or will recognize that they are not the targets. Second, per Vanamonde, the proposed sanction could be too complex to administer. If the editors are on notice, and were disruptive, just block them and be done with it. If they agree to stop acting this way, unblock them. Blocks are logged. These interaction bans aren't logged where anybody can find them easily. Finally, before everybody starts voting on sanctions, wouldn't you like to hear what the two accused editors have to say? Give them a chance to respond before jumping to conclusions. I think everybody will be better off starting a fresh thread and doing it properly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see the proposed restriction being difficult to enforce, we already have enforced a "don't discuss other topic banned users" pseudo-restriction (see BU Rob13's actions ([400]) in last summer's NadirAli topic ban discussion, and actions some users have tried to use to entrap Mar4d above). I found that decision unusual since this is a topic ban, not an interaction ban, but it has cut down on the partisan mudslinging and so I retrospectively endorse it. The problem is that while that sanction applies to users subject to the ban, other users like many who commented then and who have commented here have simply taken up that same disruptive back-and-forth, and this proposal was meant to address that. But maybe we need to rethink the sanctions applying here generally, rather than single out and discuss one or two users at a time after incidents have already occurred.

Anyway, this is clearly not going anywhere, which I interpret as lack of community will to entertain more editorial violence from one of Wikipedia's most animous conflicts rather than lack of will to do something about it (see Vanamonde93's comment) but I suggest that someone uninvolved close this in the interest of moving on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Especially as this isn't the first time we've seen this antagonistic pattern of behaviour from the named editors. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Response by Accesscrawl

I agree with what Jehochman said. I don't see how the proposed sanction made any sense since my comments on this noticeboard and reports[401][402] have been always or mostly happened to bring successful results. There are better ways to express disagree with my comments but proposing sanction to suppress the disagreement is obviously not one. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Response by Lorstaking

Since no one has explicitly mentioned any actual problem, therefore I would only say that when the problem exists with the conduct of an editor then one should welcome more output to deal with it. I only participate where my analysis is undoubtedly accurate. Unless you find misrepresentation in my comments, I would instead recommend dealing with the valid concerns raised that I have raised appropriately. Lorstaking (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Indef block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is unseemly. We do not take votes to decide whether to block a user. Moreover, there is no consensus for this sanction. Jehochman ^Talk

---

Everything from a temporary block to an indefinite block and topic ban has been already tried on Mar4d (talk · contribs). But still, we are frequently observing that Mar4d strongly refuses to understand the problems with his behavior and continues to enter into indef block territory.

Mar4d's history has been a combination of WP:RGW,[403][404][405][406][407] anti-Indian POV pushing,[408][409][410][411][412] 7 years of sock puppetry,[413][414] and reckless proxying for banned socks,[415][416][417] among other long-term issues.

Back in March 2018, I recommended a topic ban on Mar4d,[418] and I still think that things would be much better if he was topic banned at that time because right after that reported he poisoned the well to the degree that some admins believed that everyone should be banned from the area. Mar4d was also topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan and warned that any further disruption or violation of topic ban or testing edges of topic ban will lead to topic ban from WP:ARBIPA or "indefinite block" without a warning.[419]

Since his topic ban from May 2018, Mar4d has continued to display behavioral and competence issues regardless of many warnings. Even after the topic ban, he continues to describe non-vandalism as being "vandalism",[420][421] misrepresents sources[422][423][424](also see next edit), proxies for banned editors (by wikihounding contributions of others),[425][426][427] violates topic ban,[428] violates copyrights,[429] and refuses to acknowledge any of these issues.[430][431][432]

Topic ban violation, problematic editing and testing of boundaries had been pointed out in the above thread. However, Mar4d has again refused to understand the concerns and instead decided to attack other contributors especially Mountain157, and misrepresented histories of other contributors. After careful consideration, I am proposing an indef block as the appropriate solution for this cumulative behavior. This is proposal is totally in line with the warning he had received.[433] Since he can't agree to follow relevant policies, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per concise evidence presented above. Anonymous17771 (talk · contribs) was blocked for block evasion on 24 December and his edits were reverted per "Reverting a blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE".[434] This sock requested Mar4d to edit war with Mountain157 (talk · contribs)[435] and Mar4d went ahead to proxy for this blocked sock when he made this edit. Mar4d recommended the sock to report the Mountain157 in place of condemning the block evasion.[436] Moreover, these incidents came after Mar4d had been recently warned and satisfactorily clarified about proxy editing for banned editors per User talk:Mar4d/Archive 18#Mass restorations of sock edits. Orientls (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, over-reaction. The t-ban contains most of this; an interaction ban may be necessary; I'm open to expanding the topic-ban; but a site-ban is far too much. Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector's comment. As stated the topic ban was specifically regarding "the military conflict between Pakistan and India" hence no violation occurred.— Bukhari (Talk!) 09:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• @BukhariSaeed: Ban was "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed"[437] To say ban was only about "military conflict" is a misrepresentation of the topic ban. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don't see evidence of Mar4d productively editing outside ARBIPA. The highlighted issues don't concern particular subject but overall conduct problems. Editor editing for 10 years and still can't recognize basic policies? Mar4d's history does not show that he is interested in contributing outside WP:ARBIPA, hence a ban from ARBIPA would be same as issuing indefinite block for second time. When a person still does not understand what has been told to him and pledges to keep violating his sanction by telling that "I was and am absolutely clear on what the TBAN is for, and have abided by it", then he is surely a net-negative. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I tend to strongly agree with the clear and reasonable evidence provided here. Mar4d's own behavior justifies this per WP:CIR. Devopam (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is just more of the same type of hounding that Ivanvector mentioned above. With most of it stale, none of the evidence is actionable in and of itself.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Can you substantiate? Recent topic ban violations occurred on 26 December and after. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 

• Oppose blocking a contributing editor based on reverting a POV based editor is concerning and should not hold merit. It's very questionable that a 20 day old account is making a controversial changes and opening ANI's on users and it is disappointing that the community is ganging up on someone based on the OP original edits. The lack of neutral editors is also concerning which makes me question that this is in fact may be a battle behavior.If Tban violation did occur, at most, an extended ban should be proposed not a site block. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose; indeed, I suspect a lot of these efforts would be better focused on looking at Mountain157, an editor who started their Wiki-career on 13 December, and quickly showed that they were pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works. They immediately started edit-warring on a number of contentious PIA articles, and persistently tried to edit-war in additions like this with unreliable sources (or sources. like this one, that didn't even support the text). They were was blocked for it eventually (by me, on 25 December for 48 hours). Since that block has expired they have started, as mentioned above, an EW incident case despite the fact that they'd reverted more times than the editor they reported, followed by this ANI. Concerning this ANI, they've badgered an admin to take action against Mar4d [438] and canvassed another editor about Mar4d's edits [439]. Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A certainly heavy-handed and probably mistargeted response. ——SerialNumber54129 13:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE behavior by Professor Pug

Professor Pug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and instead seems mostly focused on using their userpages as a webhost. They created User:Professor Pug/sandbox/nUSA White House Communications Director Notes as some kind of information page regarding a Roblox server, and then duplicated the same info at Template:NUSA White House Communications Director (currently up at TfD) and User:Professor Pug/sandbox. Their only edits outside of these pages have been a bunch of tiny edits to List of presidents of the United States by military rank in quick succession, usually adding wikilinks, presumably to reach autoconfirmed. They overall appear to be WP:NOTHERE. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve nominated the two userspace pages discussed for speedy deletion under section U5. Definitely just using Wikipedia as a web host, WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 03:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a Roblox group of some sort trying to use the website to host information. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've also deleted the template per U5 and IAR, it's clearly of no use to the encyclopedia. What's left of the user's contribs is a handful of edits to List of presidents of the United States by military rank which someone more knowledgeable about the topic should probably review, but the user hasn't edited in three weeks, so we can probably leave this to rest. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably another round of compromised accounts

The ongoing vandalism here on ANI are all veeeeery old accounts with no activity in the past few years (if ever). DMacks (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looking at the dates they were registered, it's more likely that someone made a bunch of sleepers and is now bringing them out of the drawer.

dates, sorted
2016 05 29 2016 06 01 2016 06 03 2016 06 07 2016 06 12 2016 06 17 2016 06 17 2016 07 08 2016 07 08 2016 07 10 2016 11 04 2016 11 04 2016 11 05 2016 11 06 2016 11 06 2016 11 09 2016 11 09 2016 11 16 2016 11 23 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 24 2016 11 25 2017 02 07 2017 05 06 2017 05 07 2017 05 10 2017 05 14 2017 05 20 2017 05 24 2018 08 30

If they were compromised, I'd expect a much bigger variance in creation date. ansh666 06:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. I didn't have as large a pool to compare at the time to see that pattern. Thanks for cross-checking! DMacks (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A SPI was opened. However, most of the "compromised" account did not have edit outside ANI at all, with one account trolling Zuckerberg. The case should now handle by admin and CU, but i would say they are more likely a large pool of sleeper account. May be the sockmaster creating new accounts by ip hooping or every new public computer or other reason. No pattern on username. Matthew hk (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pteridactyl, yep. ansh666 03:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Ansh666. The troll is running through old sleepers instead of creating new accounts at the moment because a technical restriction is doing what it's supposed to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

King of Canada hoax on the Emerald 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.

---

First time doing an ANI so apologies if this is wrong; also, the IP-editor who is the subject of this has a dynamic IP (e.g. changes every edit), so I think there is no point in warning them? There is an IP-editor who keeps trying to add the "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Emerald" [440] to the most notable Emeralds on the Emerald article. I can't find any reference to the "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Emerald" except for one low-grade website here [441], which is odd given that most notable Emeralds have their own WP page (and generate lots of Google hits). There was even an ANI on this raised by editor Meters, and others, who said that it is a hoax by a long-standing sockpuppet Freecomwireless, however, I can't find the old link to the ANI. This IP editor even went to report me as WP:VD on the noticeboard (which was declined) by User:Ad Orientem, as I kept reverting their edits and reference to the Gemstone business (as part of my the "Pending Changes" reviews, as the article is protected). My concern is that this IP editor is very determined, has been doing this for a long time (back to Meters ANI), and knowledgeable enough to be able to try an report me to the vandalism noticeboard. I have noted on the Talk Page of the Emerald article my concern over this hoax, however, is there anything else I should be doing? Given the IP-editor has a dynamic address, there is little point in trying to block it? However, I would be interested in any guidance/advice here. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that Airplaneman applied pending changes protection to the page back on 17 December. If this continues to be an issue the best course might be to just step up the level of protection to semi. A quick glance shows that Airplaneman has not edited in a couple of weeks so he may not be available. Drop me a line if this doesn't stop and you are unable to get hold of Airplaneman. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem, and will do.Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Ad Orientem, given the persistence of this IP editor over the last few days (take a look at the page history, this has been going on for a while), is there a case for upping the protection above beyond IP editor status now? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Airplaneman if you disagree, feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 blocked JC7V7DC5768

The following discussion is closed. 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 blocked JC7V7DC5768 on the suspicion of being a compromised account. This user as is evident by a complaint on the talk page has been spamming random statistical emails to other users including myself. If this was a bad block, please let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2019) 04:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is really concerning since JC7V has been active within the last 24 hours before this. It's not the first time this has happened, but at least this time it's not an administrator account. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: See User talk:JC7V7DC5768#Not comprmoised ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2019) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

To me, that comment is not very convincing that JC7V7DC568 isn't compromised, nor is the following whining comment, at User talk:JC7V7DC5768#Goodbye. It might be a good idea to re-instate the block, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have observed this user, quite-much and I don't think he's compromised. FWIW, any CU to kindly run a check? ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I better withdraw that; this edit, hours back is too weird for my comfort. ∯WBG^converse 07:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent behaviour is pretty odd so I ran a check - he is currently editing from the same IP has has used for months (and it matches location and ISP for another IP that he was using back in October); technically speaking there's no evidence of a compromised account, although CU can't prove a negative. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

THAT is the edit that is too weird for your comfort? He wants his dad dead and ... really I don't know how to explain this one, but it's clearly disruptive and problematic in many ways. Natureium (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Ottomanor vandalising templates

• Ottomanor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Template:Top level Turkish football seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018–19 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017–18 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015–16 Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Süper Lig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Ottomanor recently vandalised and deleted the template Top level Turkish football seasons numerous times on several different articles now recently. The bad thing is he/she also does that persistently, even though the disruptive edits in question were reverted several times. This user also went as far as blanking the page of the respective template, see here. It is blatantly obvious that this user does not care about the rules of Wiki in any way and that cooperative work and constructive contributions are not his goal. A look on his talk page also says enough.

Here a list of his persistent disruptive edits:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4 (simply blanked the page)

Simply repeating the vandalism on the same pages (despite the reverts):

• diff5
• diff6
• diff7
• diff8
• diff9
• diff10
• diff11
• diff12

It's obvious that this user does not care about warnings, as the same edits are done again. I also have issued one. I hope you can help with this. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Akocsg: It doesn't look like you've warned the user about this on their talk page. Perhaps you should have warned first before filing an ANI report. SemiHypercube 16:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: I did so today. This user is not new and got warned about several other issues already, still ignoring them. And does that change the fact that this case is not obvious vandalism? Akocsg (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If you did warn them, I must have not noticed, but the user's behavior indeed is still disruptive, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. SemiHypercube 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Back on December 17, Ottomanor blanked the template {{Top level Turkish football seasons}} as noted above. That might seem to be an old problem, but lately he has been removing the template from other articles such as 2017–18 Süper Lig. I left a note asking him to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) List of Turkish football champions was suffered from edit war before. However, Ottomanor did not involve in the content dispute, and so far he did not reply in his talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DE by Sae249833

Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks lists team winning streaks in college football. The list is cited with an annual ("2018") NCAA record book. The article reflects the most recent available citation, where that citation is current through the conclusion of the (prior) 2017 college football season. The (next) 2019 record book will be published in the spring which allows the article to be updated to reflect any/all 2018 season games -barring the location of another exhaustive citation, which is very unlikely.

The article has been PP three times in the last 3 months re DE insertion of "2018 season" content from various IPs.[442]

After the current PP was enacted, SPA Special:Contributions/Sae249833 appeared and began identical DE where the added content is not fully supported. The 2017/2018 sourcing issue is discussed on the article Talk and the editor warned re ongoing DE on their Talk. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Michalek2905 and "Eurovision opinion" pages

The majority of the edits of Michalek2905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been in their own userspace, specifically creating and maintaining this collection of "opinion pages" on the various Eurovision Song Contests, along with a handful of mainspace edits, all to related articles. This is a substantial violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and the related pages have all been listed at MfD. Looking through their talk, I've also seen that they also created Template:Engeos and Template:Yerdea earlier last year, both of which were quickly deleted at TfD under WP:1DAY. All in all, this user really doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and is instead using various parts of the site as a general purpose web host. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Failure to communicate, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Recruos (talk · contribs)

The user first initial edits were the removal of sourced claim about the dynasty origin in Royal family of Emesa. After undoing his unexplained removal of sourced material, he made another change which falls under WP:OR by adding thus, and connecting it with the former sentence. Indicative of POV pushing.

Pointing this out and leaving his contribution, solely because I don't want to instigate an edit war, I advised him to go discuss it in the talk page's section I opened. After quite a while, it became evident that he have no desire to discuss the issue let alone solve it. So I restored the stable version until he make an effort[443]. Some time after he reverted the version without taking the time to discuss it, clearly at this point WP:NOTHERE behavior. Nabataeus (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that the new user knew how to open a request for protection, which was denied and was advised by the admin to join the opened discussion. He requested for protection a second time just of now[444] which would probably be denied. He also issued a warning on my talk page[445] after I left him a notice on his page of this ANI. Weird behavior really, I left his problematic contribution and asked him to join discussion, but failed to do so, so I restored the stable version until he make an effort. Nabataeus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you notify Recruos (talk · contribs)? I just came from WP:RFPP and again referred to DR and then to this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Yes I did notify him about the discussion in the said talk page and this ANI. Nabataeus (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page, but don't think there's anything else to do here. This topic isn't under Discretionary Sanctions and Recruos hasn't edited since this was filed (and their changes on Royal family of Emesa were reverted). This can probably be closed/archived. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Determined SPA with declared 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.

---

Could use more eyes on this. New-ish SPA Chrismccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared COI on one of the articles he's working on, Clan McCowan. However, Clan MacCowan is only a variant name of many variant names in a group of interconnected clans for which we already have multiple articles (in which the variant spellings and locations are already noted). So this unneeded stub means the user is now working on quite a few, practically-identical articles, with the same COI, pasting in the same unsourced OR,[446] and rewriting a network of articles to suit this OR. Some edits are with misleading edits summaries about "sourcing", but [447] when checked, the "sources" don't source the content (such as Gaelic "sourced" by an English dicdef of an English word). I went through and did cleanup on all these articles, but now this user has started to edit war:[448], [449], [450] to rollback the cleanup. I'm posting here now to keep other edit-wars from starting.

User has been warned by two of us on usertalk,[451],[452]; [453], [454], but is determined to keep going rather than discuss. He said he'll fix the awful sourcing, but he's just hitting undo, [455]. One of the "sources" and names he's edit-warring to add to the articles, [456] is by another COI editor who's worked on the Clan Ewing article, as well. It's not at 3RR yet, but could use more eyes. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not using unsourced material. These clans are not interconnected, they share common etymological origins. I have a feeling this is a political objection to having more than one clan that derives it's etymology or origins from the Gaelic name Eoghan. Even wen I fix my source under contention, CorbieVreccan undoes my edits. My only COI is that my surname is McCown, but that doesn't mean that my contributions aren't valid. They are very well researched. There are "at least" 4 or 5 different clans

that have ties to different people or tribes named Eoghan. CorbieVreccan is trying to conflate all of these clans together, when they are separate clans with separate histories and separate origins. He has undone a great deal of my work on these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I said I would fix my sourcing( not aweful ) which I did. I undid his reverts of my contributions after fixing the sourcing. He is being very disruptive and thwarting contributions by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

As I told you on your usertalk and in this edit summary, "sources" like commercial "Find your coats of arms!" and unsourced family genealogy pages are not Reliable Sources. Nor are self-published statements of personal genealogy by the man you're writing about (Thor Ewing). And you declared COI. We saw it. You are writing like someone who is a member of the group, advancing a group's interests and edit-warring, not here to prioritize the interests of Wikipedia. It's abundantly clear to me. I just brought it here for others to witness. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert your undo of my coat of arms site reference( even though it's reliable ). Thor Ewing wrote a book that you can buy on Amazon and it's very well sourced and cited. https://www.amazon.com/Thor-Ewing/e/B0028OKIHG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your unding of my contributions is indiscriminate and removes far more than unsourced material. You also manange to do it in a way that requires manual undoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

in fact my coat of arms reference was accepted by the reviewer of my original publication. I think Wikipedia has a common knowledge and common sense policy that I am adhering to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thor Ewing wrote a book that you can buy on Amazon'

A self-published book, from all the evidence, so not acceptable on Wikipedia except under very specific circumstances. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read the book, you'd feel differently. It's very well researched, cited and sourced and reviewed by others. You'd be hard pressed to find specific circumstances to dismiss it's authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Publisher: Welkin Books Ltd (March 21, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1910075043/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And if you look up "Welkin Books Ltd", you find that they have issued three (3) books. Guess whose name is on all three books as writer or editor? Go on, guess. Hint: the name begins with "T" and ends with "hor Ewing". So yeah, self-published. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

By coincidence, the name of the sole director of Welkin Books ends with "hor Ewing" too.[457] 92.19.31.85 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrismccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now revert-warring on several of the above-linked articles, as predicted. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin stepping in. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Is trolling me and removing ALL of my edits on Wikipedia regardless of accuracy or sourcing. He is making it very difficult to contribute knowledge to Wikipedia. Please intervene.

Now Chrismccown's edit-warring to "source" OR to... wiktionary. Even if wiktionary was a usable source, it doesn't even source the content. Edit-warring on most of the articles now, removing article templates:[458], ignoring warnings, refusing to discuss:[459],[460],[461],[462]. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrismccown has no intention to stop, even while this ANI is running. Just now he has removed a COI tag and a self-published tag from the Clan Ewing article. (Check out the quality of the sources at the bottom of the article). It seems to me that a short block might be needed to persuade him to wait for consensus . EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no COI with Clan Ewing. I have no relationship to any Ewings. The source is NOT self published. It's published by Welkin Books Ltd 2016. You are making stuff up to troll. I'm not the anonymous one, my COIs are easily known. But like all trolls, they are anonymous and we'll never know their COIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to bet that CorbieVreccan, EdJohnston and Calton are all the same person on differnt accounts to skew perception. Funny how everyone jumps on the bandwaggon at once. Also funny how all of these users use the same writing style — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering that two of those users are names I recognise, you're gonna have to come up with more than a cockamamie conspiracy theory. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The proof is in the changes and the content of the edits. Whoever reviews this, will have everything they need to see what you're doing.Chrismccown (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, when several editors all follow Wikipedia policies, the changes can look pretty similar. I also don't find the sockpuppetry accusation plausible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Or it could just be that three distinct editors disagree with your changes and what you're doing. Have you ever considered that? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, is there anything you want to tell us about those other accounts of yours? Hmm? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, He, er, I mean, we, um, I mean I am/is/are in possession of unique skills, is all. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrismccown, the web page (just one page so not a website) for Welkin Books lists three books for sale. Two are by Thor Ewing and the third is a compilation of poetry in the public domain. Clicking any of the three links leads you to Amazon.com. This is rock solid evidence that this book is self-published. Your failure to recognize this calls into question your ability to evaluate the reliability of sources. Your notion that if a book is sold by Amazon, therefore it must be reliable is false, shocking and of great concern. You are also using poorly cited 19th century sources and we prefer current sources by academics for topics like this, whether it is Scottish clans or Indian castes or Nigerian tribes. You declared a conflict of interest and you have a conflict of interest. Period. End of subject. As an inexperienced editor with a conflict of interest, you really need to defer to the judgment of experienced editors without a COI. Your accusation of sockpuppetry is spurious and laughable. On top of it all, you are edit warring. So consider this a warning. Your current behavioral pattern is almost certain to lead to a block. You need to change your behavior from top to bottom if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They have been warned but have ignored the warning. Sadly it doesn't seem they want to engage collaboratively, only to continue to push a POV and throw ridiculous accusations that have no merit. Bidgee (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

...the third is a compilation of poetry in the public domain. Guess who the editor of that volume is? Hint: the name begins with "T" and ends with "hor Ewing". --Calton | Talk 06:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Bidgee. Well, now they have been warned by an administrator as a result of this discussion here at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks also to you, Calton, for bringing forward that additional nugget of evidence. Hardly surprising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd rather buy it at Barnes in Nobel? https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/clan-ewen-robert-sutherland-taylor-macewen/1125273558 It's a legitimate source by a legitimate publisher. Thor is an subject matter expert, as he is the Commander of Clan Ewing. I also reiterate that I have no COI with Clan Ewing( check your sources ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We may be entering WP:CIR territory here. EEng 14:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a legitimate source by a legitimate publisher.

As someone else has already pointed out above, "John Thor Ewing" is the sole listed officer for the "legitimate publisher" Welkin Books Ltd, so pretty much NOT a legitimate source by NOT a legitimate publisher.

Thor is an [sic] subject matter expert

So, on a first-name basis, are you? Perhaps you could explain what, exactly, your relationship with Mr. Ewing is. And no, he's not a subject matter expert, absent any evidence other than self-proclaiming. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, Thor Ewing actually has been published elsewhere (by The History Press) and I own his Viking Clothing book which is a very good resource for anyone who wants a reference work if they are doing some (the reason I own it) concept art. No comment on his applicability to Scottish clan history, I was under the impression he was more Norse-fixated. But Welkin is undeniably a self-publisher with regards to his work as he is the owner and sole director. Its likely retail carries his books because he is a published author elsewhere, but self-published is self-published and useable only under certain conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps all those out to discredit the material should read Commander John Thor Ewing's( I used his full official name used to imply no relationship ) books before making broad accusations on the content. I'd use your full name [[User User talk:Calton but I don't know what it is. I guess we're friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use his "full official name", pretentious as it is, you used his first name only, an act of familiarity. So, again I ask: what is your relationship with or to Ewing? --Calton | Talk 17:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i just found this thread since i was about to report Chrismccown here for failure to discuss his changes on the talk and persistent edit warring (even if, for this last point, the e/w noticeboard is more appropriate). This user seems to not understand how Wikipedia works and so far, he has reverted 3 different editors 4 times within less than 24 hours (he reverted two times CorbieVeccan, 1 time me and 1 time Bidgee). The sources he tries to include seem partisan (written by members of the clan Ewing) and, while i posted a 3RR warning on his talk, he ignored it and keeps reverting. I think that the community should take some action to stop this, but this is, of course, admins’ call. Wish everybody here a happy new year and a great rest of your day. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please have an admin review this disruptive targeted trolling of ALL my contribution on Wikipedia. This personal targeting of me, is not collaborative and review of the edits and these conversations will reveal that to honest broker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismccown (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Several admins are reading all this and as far as i can see, you’ve been warned by one of them just above in this thread. Again, i ask you to discuss your changes on the article’s talk page since this is how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chrismccown:, another revert (5th in less than 24 hours if i’m not mistaken ...), i drop the stick since i don’t want to be engaged in edit warring, i’ll let admins deal with you. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

How big of you to drop the stick @Wikaviani:,.It's nice that another one of your friends to picked it back up. Did you mention how many times I've been reverted across ALL my contributions on Wikipedia( including Clan Ewing ) in a targeted harassment campaign by you and your pals ? Did you mention that you are indiscriminately reverting ALL content that I've contributed. You have removed valid wiki-links to other wiki-pages that should remain after the revert of your supposed objected content. This is because you don't review the content and you are only interested in removing ANYTHING that I've contributed regardless of content.Chrismccown (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You really need to read wiki policies like WP:3RR, WP:VER, WP:WAR, WP:RS etc ... Also, you've made more than 180 edits and i only reverted a few of them, not really what can be called reverting ALL content that I've contributed. As to my "friends", let me tell you that i'm here to contribute, modestly, to this project and any other editor who's here for the same purposes is, indeed, my friend. As said to you by numerous other editors now, the sources you try to include are unreliable and for the least, their inclusion would need discussion and consensus on the talk page. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not violating policies. I've made a lot of edits as a good faith contributor, that have been undone in bulk over the past day by this group of people. You have made no contributions to Clan Ewing until today and those contributions are only to indiscriminately remove all of my contributions, that is unless this is a duplicate user account of User:CorbieVreccan. I hope the admins reviewing this are able to look at IP addresses. You are removing more than the sources you deam unreliable. You are removing links and other contributions. In short, you seem to have no interest in Clan Ewing or keeping valid content.Chrismccown (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for continuing to edit war after engaging at WP:AN3. I have no objection to anyone adjusting the block without notifying me. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda, and everyone, especially those who also checked the sources and helped with the cleanup. As the block is only for 24 hours, I'd like to keep this open and see what happens when the block expires. I have a feeling we're going to be back here shortly. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think so. It's pretty clear Chrismccown has severe ownership issues with regards to this topic, and it seems all but certain they've also got a conflict of interest (though whether or not it's UPE or not is beyond my ken, no pun intended). Coupled with the unsubstantiated (and frankly audacious) claims of sockpuppetry against two users who I know to be amongst the most even-handed and fair on this site and I predict he's going to outstay his welcome sooner rather than later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week since they instantly resumed edit warring. Any admin feel free to change/extend the block as necessary since I've only looked into this a bit. (also Special:Contributions/Silverfoxygen looks pretty socky..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I somehow didn't see your post here, without an edit conflict. Anyway, thanks for pushing the buttons. Very socky, this new one... I'd block Silverfoxygen, myself, but I shouldn't make the call as I edit all these articles. I think this user shows the temperament of one who would sock, and it looked like a clear attempt at testing the waters on block evasion to me. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrismccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is behaving as predicted. Moments before the block expired, new account was created and did one of the expected reverts on the cleanup: Silverfoxygen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I reverted and warned them, but I assume it's a sock or meat: (reverting cleanup from issue at ANI). Now Chris is back to the usual. I gave him a talk warning, yet again. But it's the usual behaviour. This is a clear case of WP:OWN and WP:NOTHERE. He is misrepresenting sources and ruining articles. He is not going to stop.

• Removing templates
• Again with bad sourcing he was blocked for edit-warring over
• Reverting cleanup
• Replying to warnings with insults, refusal to understand or respect policies around sourcing. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, given his latest unblock rationale is "Why isn't Corbie blocked for edit-warring?". I'm also fairly convinced Silverfoxygen is his and is intended to continue editing in the event the weeklong block becomes an indef. Can a CU opine on whether or not Chris and Silver are connected technically? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Analyzing the logged-out addition of unsourced material that pushes the same POV, notably on the McCown article, this user has a dynamic IP. Various IP edits, all geolocating to the same area, push the same POV. Sock probability increases due to this, along with socking via logged-out editing. Also see the history of the McCown article. I notice that some of this POV push began when the other user discussed above in the sourcing section (esp. regarding Clan Ewing) edited the article, Thor Ewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), though at an intial look, it's Chris that's the edit-warrior. Still, abusing multiple accounts, plus the same COI and sourcing issues. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Quack:Cmccown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Contribs show initial addition of all the same fake etymologies, names, and DNA stuff current account has been edit-warring to re-instate after other editors removed it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI, though it seems that with regards to Silverfoxygen Bbb23 has already indef'd it and Chrismccown. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Main current account (that we know of) and most recent sock indeffed. Any objections to adding Cmccown to the drawer? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Promotional SPA

The following discussion is closed. 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 block (or whatever is appropriate) User:Techusmani. The account is an SPA whose only contribution so far (diff) is to add a URL which points to a domain called 'Techusmanii dot com'. Their username itself fails WP:PROMONAME. Thanks, Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not the policy ..I apologize for sharing URL. I saw many URLs attached that's why I attached..forgive ne Techusmani (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) *_{(for clarity, I moved this from my talk page so I could reply to it here. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC))}

I'd have probably warned you about advertising and left it at that, but there's zero evidence you are here to make an encyclopedia . Also your username matches the base page of the link you posted, which is kinda damning and problematic. In addition, the complaint you made to your talk page (here) was 13 minutes before you made your only registered edit to article space; so that leaves me wondering what other deleted (presumably reverted) edits you are referring to? Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Techusmani per the username policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Confused

The following discussion is closed. 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 edited some text and add URL then I got messages from wikipedia of policy violation.I apologize all the things are done by mistakes..forgive me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techusmani (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Political objections to the Baha'i Faith

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

---

There are, at the moment, 2 un-cooperative "cultist" WP editors (no disrespect) who systematically prevent other uninvolved, established, neutral, editors to edit and any make sourced additions or well intended small modifications to this above article (& related article set) - for months! This has to stop immediately. Peace & Love to all! 66.87.9.102 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Bizarre edits

Odd spamming of a link (as far as I can tell to) Authority control for no reason I can ascertain [[463]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am doing that so it links to wikidate (if it already exist), and it will be there if/when someone creates it. Seems like a logical idea to me.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What is wikidate?Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata - links to WorldCat, LOC, NARA and other information databases. Even if a wikidate template is not currently avaiable, I added them so that the infrasturcture will already exist when someone makes a wikidata template of, so, the 1896 US presidential election.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a fully made template, it includes links to worldcat, BNF, BNE, LCCN, among others.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So (in essence) a load of links to something that does not exist? I am not sure then this may be actionable (as it was done in good faith) but I am not sure that putting tons of non working links in articles "on the off chance" is a good idea.20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Since communication has been established, behavior explained and nothing actually actionable has been alleged, would it not be a good idea to continue the discussion in a more appropriate venue, like perhaps a talk page? Kleuske (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to explain my reasoning further - are not just links to things that don't exist yet. In many cases there are already large templates, but no one has added the link yet. In others, a template may not yet exist, but if the article is something that would be likely receive one - a library presidential election, political convention - then the link already exist once someone makes a temple. Look at this series of edits on Libraries in Spain for a typical selection of articles that I added that to. Many of them had large templates, but no one knew of this because the link wasn't there. In other cases I have provided a link for if/when one is eventually made.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• And here is one that I removed. It did have an effect: it inserted a link to a music (!!) index that for some reason had copied our article. Wikidata imports that crap without any apparent oversight and puts it on our pages with this template and we will only notice it per chance, like in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:24.59.245.106 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. 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 changed owner names on TV station articles without seeking consensus. I would have to revert all of their edits, which would be time-consuming. Could someone use a bot or something? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done (Non-administrator comment) I have rollbacked all of the edits to TV station articles except one, which was a good edit. IWI (chat) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 stop the vandalism and removal of academic sources

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

---

I keep on having someone vandalize [464] [465] the article Pilaf by removing academic sources. Can someone please stop this? The username of the one who is vandalizing it is Highpeaks35. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is more vandalism here [466]. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

None of this vandalism; you have a content dispute. You both have sources that support origin in different cultures; you should engage in discussion on the talk page to decide how to incorporate them all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't vandalism, this is a content dispute. You made some bold changes which were reverted. Now it's time to discuss your changes on the talk page and come to a consensus before you add those changes back in. Please follow WP:BRD and WP:3RR. You're right up to the edge on 3RR and could be blocked if you continue to edit war. Mysticdan (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally, you failed to notify Highpeaks35 of this discussion; I'll do it for you Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

LOLT2

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

---

• LOLT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks to me like a vandalism-only account that is past-ripe for an indef. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, but vandalism reports are usually responded to faster at WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but I felt this was something that goes beyond vandalism after a fourth warning. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for intervention at Talk:Syrian Civil War

It would be great if someone intervened at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime. User:Jim7049's arguments consist entirely of denying that sources have been provided, even though they are there for anyone to see. Ignoring him is not an option, as that leaves him free to revert my edits once every 24 hours, and I am not keen to get blocked for violating the 1RR either. I am not proposing that anyone should be blocked, and he has made useful edits elsewhere, but it would be great if an administrator stepped in and put an end to this non-discussion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

He has also been causing issues here and its corresponding article.Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a new post of his in the talk page for this article "Where the hell did you come from? This article doesn't have a 1RR. Go mind your own business rather than stalking me. Jim7049 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)" Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

He also just violated the 1RR which is in place for all articles relating to the Syrian Civil War. At this point, a block might be appropriate. Mikrobølgeovn Nevermind, he self-reverted. (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The true cause of a blocked IP?

Hey, I just want [this block looked into.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:220.245.208.179#December_2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.129.66 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So you are evading your block to request unblock? The procedure for requesting unblock is given in your block notice. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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

  The IP is not blocked. They were blocked on 13 December 2018 for deletions at Frankfurt School. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've looked into it. The IP did this [467] seven times and then did this [468]. The block was completely appropriate, which is more than I can say about 220.x's behavior. Then you left this remarkably clueless comment [469]. Does your current IP need to be blocked? Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Various meat sock from Beijing (and may be Tianjin)

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

---

• Republic of China (1912–1949) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qing dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Li Zongren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CCTV New Year's Gala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see talk page RM)
• Beiyang government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nationalist government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• etc.
• 123.113.78.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Unicom Beijing branch)
• 2409:8900:1811:9286:F76F:DB8F:3FC3:DCAB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Mobile)
• 2409:8900:1811:64f9:a476:279a:604:cd92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Mobile)
• 2409:8900:1811:fc95:e0d5:e76f:19e:704f (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Mobile)
• 2409:8900:1810:d9c5:9d65:dfc3:e62e:95b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Mobile)
• 117.136.38.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Mobile)
• 124.127.203.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (with may be not existed Research Institution of Telecom in the WHOIS, as the known Gao jia yuan (e.g. Gaojiayuan station) is located in Chaoyang District, Beijing)
• 111.194.23.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (China Unicom Beijing branch)

All articles were involved in content dispute, which Favonian already blocked 123.150.182.176/29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 111.192.187.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. Not sure the block was related to the content dispute or not, as well as not sure how to file SPI without a name as master, thus file here .

It seem another ip (123.113.78.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:8900:1811:9286:F76F:DB8F:3FC3:DCAB (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) made another edits that similar to the blocked ip as apparent block evasion. Compare Special:Diff/876949969 (old), Special:Diff/877205403 (new), Special:Diff/877264276 (new).

While the ip that already blocked by Favonian, had attempted to vote move the article CCTV New Year's Gala, yet 123.113.78.173 (from China Unicom ISP) lobbied StraussInTheHouse, the thread closer . The similarity of edit in Qing dynasty and the involvement in RM by 123.113.78.173, looks ducking.

And then it is not the end of the story. Yet another ip (2409:8900:1811:64f9:a476:279a:604:cd92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started a Move review, with yet another ip correct his signature and refine wording (all from China Mobile), that have the same signature pattern with not blocked RM nominator 111.194.23.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (compare Special:Diff/875897880, Special:Diff/877235701, Special:Diff/877236617)

Odd enough, he (2409:8900:1811:64f9:a476:279a:604:cd92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) declared "Although I am not 123.113.78.173", which a classical 此地無銀三百兩 (Chinese idiom) on declaring he is socking or ip hooping.

Then, another ip that involved in the RM (not blocked), 124.127.203.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), emerged to comment the Move review, with yet the same signature.

Thus, given the edit war in the articles and apparently socking and block evasion by comparing edits, despite the ISP are not the same, should the new ip be blocked ? Matthew hk (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Four brand-new accounts that obviously aren't here to build an encyclopaedia (and merit a CU-check...)

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

---

Between 16:58 and 17:07 UTC today four new, and quite probably related, utterly suspicious user accounts were created, all showing clear signs of not having been created to build an encyclopaedia, but do something they shouldn't be doing here, since all four of them have made ten utterly meaningless edits (adding a letter and then in the next edit removing it again, repeated five times), and then stopped editing, a common pattern among people who want to become autoconfirmed as quickly as possible.

The accounts are:

1. MelbourneStormtrooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. BetsyBoohoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. TheClapIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. EatMyCrabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So could someone check if they're related, and also if there are more of them? Or just simply block them, and get it over with... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - all 4 blocked, plus a bunch of others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Thanks. A full dozen, not bad. Anyone I know? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not that I can say conclusively, no, but I'm not done looking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The master is WikiHogan654 (talk · contribs · count). I'll probably open an SPI because of the number of socks, unless Ivanvector, who blocked the majority, wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead, I'm having a slow day. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I can go eat lunch. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

For those who keep their eyes on such things: The sockmaster has been on my radar for edit-warring to include, in articles regarding women who have accused men of sexual assault (e.g. McKayla Maroney, Christine Blasey Ford), very expansive, arguable WP:SYNTH interpretations of sources clearly intended to subtly disparage the accusers. I suspect more mischief will be forthcoming. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Tsumikiria SPA pushing obvious NPOV violations on Gab article, as well as Antifa 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.

---

The title says it all, folks. This user has spent several months smearing Gab and defending their precious Antifa page. Strangely enough, on their own profile, they "support" Antifa. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Nonetheless, they continue to push their POV onto each article. They bring in their friends and establish a consensus, and whenever someone disagrees, this user pushes to get them indeff'ed off the site. Unfortunately, it has worked every single time. This time, they are targeting me for even daring to disagree with their POV. 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, when they were disagreed with, and other users were reverting their edits, they submitted a page protection thingy so that nobody else could oppose their POV. Sad 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and ECP'd Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for two days to slow down the disruption. Feel free to remove or modify protection as you see fit. No idea which version is best. Hopefully we can work this out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The IP is clearly the SPA, there's no evidence that Tsumikiria is given the variety of articles they've edited. And a userbox saying that they support Antifa doesn't excuse "You're an antifa member (aka terrorist)" as a response to Tsummikiria's warning. I've been involved with the article so am not taking any action, but WP:Boomerang may be in order. I know that we've had at least one sock editing this article.User:HappenedAnd88 and an SPA site banned.[470]. A third was blocked for vandalism. That's every editor currently blocked in the last 500 edits. User:Dlohcierekim has now applied ECP. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Note "terrorist" . ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

<ec>There's nothing wrong with requesting a page protection thingy, and the OP is on the edge of being blocked, based on this [471] behavior. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

<ec>>::Highly tempted to block OP and let the regulars sort it out. Showed up out of the blue to go to work on article in question and slinging mud in partisan manner. Looks like a sock to me. Looks NOTHERE to me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@50.107.81.26: Sorry, but you are the sad one. Page protection is done to stop disruption and allow discussion to seek consensus. Apparently you re not amenable to discussion. I propose another remedy.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well now I know to add the gab page to my regular watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

50.107.81.26 is an IP sock. I'd rather not go into any further detail because it's based on CU evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I was out for a few hours and wow, this happened. Seems like a WP:BOOMERANG has already been applied. NinjaRobotPirate, can we have definitive info on which puppetmaster this sock belong to? The last flurry of edits from User:Ridiceo, I remember, was to remove the well sourced phrases "known for its far-right user base" and "favorite of far-right users", and to insert {cn} throughout the article. Both of which done by the IP editor here.

Also, given that the subject of the article has actively tried to recruit editors onto this article (latest bat signal being this retweet on Jan 6), an increased media attention since the Pittsburgh shooting, and the volume of disruptive editing and (civil) POV pushers we received on this article in the past 3 months, can we make this article indefinitely under semi-protection? It's getting far too exhausting for us regulars on the page to deal with. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Checkusers aren't permitted to confirm such information under most circumstances. You'll have to draw our own conclusions. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just going to strike my comment. Haven't used WP:SPI before so didn't read about the privacy policy bit. Oh well, I remain highly curious, though. Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Tiugosh appears NOTHERE

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

---

• Tiugosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ISO 4217 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User appears to want to claim a new nation called Einegroße ([472], [473]) and is using Wikipedia to promote this. Please see the history of the two linked articles above as well as this image. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Already blocked per WP:NOTHERE by RickinBaltimore. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• (ec x2) The last edit about how his family found the country of China, etc was what sealed the deal for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you RickinBaltimore. And everyone knows that Christopher Columbus found it in 1492. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What about Walt Disney being the lead singer in the Animals? Priceless. Jschnur (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

AlanSmithee1990

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

---

AlanSmithee1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AlanSmithee1990 is very clearly WP:NOTHERE. They refuse to provide any citations for their changes, and resort to... well. They are at least entertaining edit summaries (e.g., "STOP SAYING UNCITED CHANGES STOP SAYING UNCITED CHANGES STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠"). I'm not the only person dealing with this person; they clearly need to go.--Jorm (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm: Seems like a sock of Nate Speed to me. -INeedSupport- ^:3 02:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)(Non-administrator comment)

I think this editor is being very disruptive and should be indeffed; however, I don't think it's a Nate Speed sock. Nate never uses emojis in his edit summaries, just ASCII emoticons. To my knowledge, Nate's never insulted feminists or dabbled in topics relating to politics or white supremacy either. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User crossed 4RR and made unsourced changes on multiple film related articles like Carpool (1996 film) and Gramercy Pictures. Made WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal on American politics articles like Gab (social network) and Template:White nationalism. Made personal attacks in edit summaries:[474][475][476]. Definitely NOTHERE. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender may have some opinions as well.--Jorm (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with the above summaries of AlanSmithee1990's behavior. They're here to push their political beliefs; not to contribute to an encyclopedia. Indeffed.--v/r - TP 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE

About a month ago, an editor under the IP 45.228.205.17 began adding a plethora of non-notable characters to List of Scooby-Doo characters, as can be seen in the page history. Very quickly, another editor by the name of Conner Kent o superboy began making the exact same edits to the page, continually adding trivial information and character entries. It quickly became apparent that the IP and Conner Kent were the same person. Their edits were reverted several times 1 2, yet they continued making very large additions of non-notable characters and created another account, Conner Kent69 to do so. 3 Eventually, after making literal hundreds of edits between the three accounts, they posted a message on my talk page. I suggested that they discuss their edits on the article talk page before continuing to make such trivial and controversial edits. After a short correspondence, Conner stopped replying and stopped editing for several weeks.

However, a few days ago, Conner created an entire article, List of minor Scooby-Doo characters which almost exclusively features non-notable characters that appeared in a single episode, such as "Janitor" and "Foreman and Workers." In addition, nearly all the information was copy-and-pasted from the external site Scoobypedia. As can be seen in his contributions, Conner has also begun spamming his new article on any Scooby-Doo related article he can think of. Yesterday, I posted a message on his talk page requesting again that he discussed, or I would reporting him here for his disruptive behavior. Conner did not reply and has continued making more edits as of this morning. This WP:IGNOREALLRULES and trivial style of editing is obviously not compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominated List of minor Scooby-Doo characters for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Scooby-Doo characters. SemiHypercube 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Zoinks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

...if it wasn't for those pesky page patrollers—! ——SerialNumber54129 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

They have also created another trivial article on Scooby Doo related material: The Hex Girls (fictional band). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and at this point it really could be sent to WP:SPI because these accounts seem like socks to me. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn

Pages in question:

• Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (talk page thread)
• National Front for Liberation–Tahrir al-Sham conflict (talk page thread)

Jim7049's behavior is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

• He is filibustering this thread on the talk page for Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. While ample sources have been provided, he simply ignores their existence and treats the discussion like an Argument Clinic. Although a total of four users (@FunkMonk: @XavierGreen: @Applodion: @Eik Corell:) have agreed that Iraq is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (it conducts airstrikes against ISIS on Syrian territory with the approval of the Assad government), he simply ignores it and repeats his own denials. Due to the 1RR, he gets to game the system and effectively prevent the inclusion of well-supported content, even though there is a clear consensus backing it.
• Quote from the other talk page mentioned above: "Where the hell did you come from? This article doesn't have a 1RR. Go mind your own business rather than stalking me." (diff) On both talk pages in question, his attitude shows zero interest in achieving a dispute resolution. Accusing me of conducting original research is also a clear example of baiting.

I previously requested an intervention by an administrator to solve the first of the two issues, while specifically not requesting a block (I am now aware that this was not the right forum for that sort of request). I now propose adequate sanctions to put an end to this disruptive behavior. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all the second article you mentioned was created and heavily written by me so it's funny you accuse me of WP:NOTHERE. For the other one, you are pushing for adding Original Research, I remove it and you open a incident for that? You are the one violating the rules and then report me. Good job. You put an incident of me in here yesterday as well, and now a second one even before any moderate commented on the one yesterday. Rather than blaming me to the mods why don't you explain why you're putting up original research, I am simply removing that unsourced content you placed. You are the one cleary being a case of WP:NOTHERE. At least in the Syrian Civil War article. Jim7049 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You have proven yourself impossible to communicate with, let alone cooperate with. The "unsourced content" was supported by five or six sources (if I remember correctly), as well as consensus on the talk page. Your sole contribution to the discussion was denial at the face of hard evidence. That can work at the Argument Clinic, but not on Wikipedia. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should it be me who is impossible to communicate to, you are the one pushing for original content. What kind of cooperation do you expect me to have. None of those sources mention the change you are trying to make, it doesn't even imply it. Also it's funny you open an incident when you are the one breaking the rules. I hope a moderator notices this incident you opened soon and gives you a lesson. And what consensus are you talking about? Consensus doesn't give you the right to make original content edits. Just delete this incident and stop being so stubborn. If you ever have an actual source, you can make the change you wish to do. Jim7049 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There are sources aplenty. You can filibuster the article in question, but it won't work in the long run - anyone can read the discussion thread and see that the "original research" is a product of your imagination (or lack of understanding of the term). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what original research is, so I'm gonna leave it to the mods. Jim7049 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, here is the "original research" he is talking about: "Iraq's military involvement in Syria is limited to airstrikes against ISIL on Syrian territory, which it has carried out in coordination with the Syrian government. It has not clashed with other belligerents in the war, including the Syrian opposition." (diff) Notice that this is completely uncontroversial, and backed by a solid number of sources as well as talk page consensus. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Source doesn't mention any coordination, it just says Syrian Gov has allowed Iraq to strike ISIS. My question is why are you so persistent on putting Iraq next to Syrian Government on the infobox. The source doesn't mention any direct support, and this is original research because "Original research ...includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." In no where is there a mention of being a belligerent on the side of Syrian Government in any of those sources, hence original research. The strikes against ISIS could help SDF as well, who is also fighting ISIS so why should Iraq be listed like Iran and Russia next to Syrian Government? Jim7049 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no point repeating the entire discussion here. This is not about a content dispute, this is about your filibustering. As of right now, there is a clear consensus behind the change that you keep reverting, so when the RfC closes, and unless the consensus changes, that's the version that will stand. You've had days to propose alternatives, but actively decided to forego that grand opportunity and instead paralyze the template by exploiting the 1RR. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of spamming, vandalism, disruption, bludgeoning, personal attacks by User:Qualitist

I would like to report User:Qualitist for making accusations of spamming, bludgeoning, vandalism, disruption, and personal attacks in this thread at my t/p. If the allegations are found to be true, may an admin take adquate measures against me. Additionally, I would like to report both myself and them for edit warring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om Thanvi .Regards.  — fr ⁺ 09:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you really want to draw attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om Thanvi? Your comments there are pretty much a textbook example of bludgeoning the process. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No one said that you are vandalizing. But to edit war to tag each of my comment when I had already revealed that I am the creator can be considered as forceful attempt to discredit my comments when you are edit warring over the tags by claiming that the relisting admin couldn't read the arguments constituted disruption.[477] Remarks like "welcome to Wikipedia"(to an editor editing for 5 years), " you who is out of touch with the current policies. Lastly, your assumption of bad faith" constitute personal attacks. Finally, telling an editor to try ANI when they drop a note on your talk page[478] is also inappropriate because a person has to resolve issues between themselves before coming to ANI. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I have been overenthusiastic and am ready to be blocked for it. Using Template:uw-vand1 on my t/p as a method of discussion is I believe a non-starter. Additionally, my comments referenced by Shiv Karan are out of context. Regards. — fr ⁺ 10:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Shiv Karan, you have raised extremely important points which I was unable to reply to since I was editing via my mobile. First off, I never said that the relisting editor could not read the arguments. I was merely saying that there was a chance that the relisting admin had accidentally overlooked the fact that you were the creator of the article and could have acted differently if he had known that you were the creator. Secondly, the editor in question Orientls, has started actively editing after the User:Forceradical account was registered. Also, realistically I don't believe that I am expected to run an XTools query on each and every editor I am commenting on. Thirdly, the full context of that comment is "Lastly, if in your opinion one review of a book in a newspaper in which Om Thanvi was a former employee counts as a independent source which is enough to prove a person notable then I believe its you who is out of touch with the current policies" which was made in response to comment asking me to "familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and WP:NAUTHOR.". Lastly, using the {{uw-vand1}} as a template to open discussion on a t/p of a person with non-trivial edits to the encyclopedia is frankly insulting and demeaning. Iridescent, I agree that I have been over-enthusiastic at the AFD but that should not mean that the badgering and personal attacks by other users at the AFD should go absolutely un-noticed. Please apply policy uniformly. Reagrds. — fr ⁺ 16:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused - you are reporting Qualitist for warning you, but you're also reporting yourself for edit warring? If you're aware that you're edit-warring, step away from the page in question. Unwatch the page, take a break, go edit something fun. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's good advice.  << FR 11:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio, apparently not listing; I think a block might be the only way to stop it

The following discussion is closed. 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, this one apparently is listing.

-EEng

Wikiims (talk · contribs)

This user has had a CCI request open on them for months,[479] by which time Caknuck (talk · contribs) said the problem had already persisted for months. Wikiims has never responded to or acknowledged the talk page warnings, and in fact has never edited the user talk namespace at all.[480] Recently this[481][482] happened.

I don't think the user is capable of understanding our copyright policy, and will just need to be blocked to prevent this from continuing. Perhaps the Black Ink Crew: Chicago (season 5) should be speedied as well, given that Wikiims is the only significant contributor and the page has contained plagiarized text since its creation; unfortunately I cannot figure out whether this edit was also copy-pasted from somewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So, is copyvio not "sexy" anymore? Or did everyone think, given the timing in relation to my other edits and this section title, that I had opened this ANI thread about one of the "untouchable" (in the MC Hammer sense) editors and decided to stay the hell away for their own sanity? Because the former excuse makes no sense, and the latter, while understandable, I can assure you that it is not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have indefinitely (not necessarily permanently) blocked Wikiims until they address these concerns, as they have failed to do so for six years. You don't need to start on conspiracy theories just because your post wasn't addressed within 24 hours. We are volunteers, not your skivvies. Fish+Karate 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I was joking, and you have to admit it is pretty good material for humour when an open-and-shut case like this is not replied to in the time that no less than six new threads are opened, and then closed. (The "conspiracy theory" stuff is ... well, it's not entirely unreasonable, since there are definitely "unblockable" editors -- see for example this discussion that had overwhelming community support for an indefinite TBAN, and ended with a supervote for an undiscussed fixed-term TBAN that definitely did not solve the problem and led to more disruption months and years later.)

All that being said, thank you for addressing this. I'll be happy if that's the end of it. I'll try to see about cleaning up some of the prior copyvio later.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to continue making dishonest, passive-aggressive attempts to game the system and ruin my reputation, I suggest you have the decency to actually tag me. Amusingly, you also chose to do this while I haven't had time to edit lately, and you continue to aptly accuse editors you don't like of doing exactly what you've been doing. There are indeed "unblockable" disruptive users that conspire with one another (namely you, Curly and your buddies), hence why this entire situation is going to WP:ARBCOM to begin with. And believe me, I am still taking notes. Already, a number of other editors have been emailing me, sharing their own experiences in dealing with your behaviour and sanction dodging [the identities of which I will not be disclosing without their permission; or any other information until the case request has been filed]. It's also amazing that you were able to successfully repeal your most recent block, even though that is regular behaviour from you. Keep making the situation worse for yourself. DarkKnight2149 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, DK, give up this fucking fantasy of a cabal out to get you. It's been so long I thought even you had finally gotten the fuck over it. You fucked up, you did your time, now move the fuck on—and don't ever fucking ping me into a discussion that has fuck all to do with me again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Conversely, stop disrupting Wikipedia, lying about other users, factioning, system gaming, ETC. The ping was merely a curtousy to let you know that I mentioned you... Also, didn't your friend "frequent collaborator" whatever Hijiri just lie and say that I'm the one that's part of some secret group of "untouchable users" above? You're a good liar, but the evidence will speak for itself. Now, if Hijiri is done with his dishonest smear campaign against me, I have more important things to get done off-Wiki. DarkKnight2149 05:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 User:73.91.229.75

The following discussion is closed. 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 specific IP user has attacked me multiple times and his content are extremely inappropriate for Wikipedia. He also admits that he WANTS to vandalize Wikipedia.

For his edits, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.91.229.75

There are three or four that are directed to me and at least two in which he asks to vandalize the page.

Thank you, --It's Boothsift 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs (specific edits) to supplement your argument, Boothsift. You're more likely to get a response if you don't make administrators search through a contributions list. That's your job as the person posting a complaint. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:A1E3:10BC:B254:A6AC (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Somebody else gave them a 60 hour block already. /wangi (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Improve article Millennials

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems entirely based on selective hate speeches regarding millennial. Any positive remarks of millennial are removed and only selective negative information are included , most of which are not factual but based on predictions. Also any user adding pictures of prominent millienals is shouted off by particular users who act like article owners, saying we are not allowed to add pictures, but the articles Generation X and Baby Boomers do allow pictures. The pictures on the article are ambiguous, claiming them to be millennial is original research. Yet if we add celebrity pictures of known millennial celebrities they say we are not allowed to. This article seems nothing but a hate friction, with useful information, totally violating NPOV and its sole goal is to make Millennial look inferior to Generation X based on what some "heroic Generation X users wants included and does not want to be included. Just check the revision history and the talk page [[483]] . Maybe I can do no better to improve it, but the why this article currently is, it is no more than a millennial hate fiction. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) May be wrong venue. May be go to Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask experience editor to help? Unless the materials is so disruptive that requires admin to block user and/or deleting individual page revisions from history. Matthew hk (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok, am new to this, its not that disruptive, just needs to be better quality, ok you may close this thread then. But please do review the article. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 of edit-warring utterly obvious sock needed

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

---

• 87.103.15.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Obvious sock of Special:Contributions/83.240.186.98 and User:G.-M. Cupertino, a perfect match in both edits and geolocation to previous socks . See report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive#08 January 2019. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Content dispute becoming a BLP issue

Began as a content dispute at footballer Vinny Faherty, which had suffered from content disputes in the past, e.g. thread. An editor added the player's most recent (quite obscure) club, sourced to that country's football association website. I added their source inline, and generally tidied up the article [484]. A few days later, an anon removed mention of that club, claiming proof of site's inaccuracy would appear soon; after 3 days I restored sourced content [485]. Two weeks later, same again, only I reverted rather quicker [486]. Next day, same again [487], so I took to talk page with sources for player being at the obscure club: thread.

The point of this posting is that the anon then replied suggesting that the player registration process was flawed and offering to email me supporting documentation,[488] which takes the issue way above my pay grade. Where do we go from here?

I've notified the last IP address used by the latest anon, which is likely a dynamic one, and left a note at the article talk page, and also notified a registered editor who removed the content again in the last few hours. Thanks for your time, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Any information that is required I have access to and can send in a private manner. The player himself has stated his only club in Cyprus was PAEEK. Any documentation that is required can be forwarded on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.42.88 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. We need verifiability, which means published sources; not correspondence and private documents. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention we're not inclined to provide our personal email addresses to an IP editor on an extremely public page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring, spamming, refusal to acknowledge consensus - WP:NOTHERE

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

On October 15, I noticed that an editor called TurokSwe was incorporating exclusive elements from Alien vs. Predator (franchise) and Predator (franchise) into Alien (franchise), so I sent them a notification that the pages were for their own respective franchises and that while they have a few elements - Aliens, Predators and Weyland-Yutani - intersecting, that they're still considered three separate franchises. These last few days, they stepped up the ante and began adding elements from all the pages into one another, including non-applicable navboxes for Template:Alien (franchise), Template:Predator and Template:Alien vs. Predator.

SNAAAAKE!! was the first to notice that all three navboxes were improperly present on Alien vs. Predator (arcade game) (diff) and after SNAAAAKE!! reverted the changes and TurokSwe immediately responded in kind, SNAAAAKE!! opened up a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template. *Treker also detected the issue and summarily removed the uncorrelated navboxes from List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) comics (diff), which TurokSwe immediately reverted. After SNAAAAKE!! informed me of the dispute, I restored the pages to their previous state of navboxes, but TurokSwe reverted all of them, including Ellen Ripley (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (diff), Aliens vs. Predator (2010 video game) (diff), Aliens versus Predator (1999 video game) (diff), Aliens Versus Predator: Extinction (diff) - edit-warring, after doing the same with the other editors. At this point, I opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, as things were escalating quickly and I wanted to have a peaceful resolution. Even with very long, drawn out discussions at the navbox talk page and DNR, TurokSwe continued to revert other editors' edits, while we looked to not engage until after consensus could be reached. Walter Görlitz requested that I provide a full account of the situation, which I did yesterday, effectively sealing consensus. Though, the editor is continuing the edit war even today, saying that we should "discuss the issue" - as if we didn't already have an overdrawn, long discussion that was perpetually leading a horse to water.(1, 2)

In the meantime, there's a whole other half to this editor's misconduct on these pages. This editor has been utilizing the website AVPGalaxy.net in such a manner that it triggered spam filters, leading @Moxy: to remove mentions of it on various pages. TurokSwe replied in kind by edit-warring with them on Alien (franchise) (1, 2, 3), The Predator (film) (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (1, 2, 3), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2). Then, when it was alerted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the administrator JzG stepped in to clean up the pages, TurokSwe edit warred with them on Alien (franchise) (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2) - and now avpgalaxy.net has been blacklisted for user-generated content and edit-warring.

This editor has been explained the situation in minute detail repeatedly and with the navbox dispute, we gave them ample rope. This manner of behavior got them blocked from Wikipedia repeatedly in the past - they should know better. With today's insistence on continuing, I can only assume that this is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. I propose either a topic ban, if not an extended block. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel a site ban is way too harsh, I think a month long block and a temporary topic ban may be order.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to him and not do do again. Don't really know what's going on in other articles besides the infoboxes thing. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a site ban is too harsh, even though I agree that TurokSwe is NOTHERE. A long block is warranted though: for edit warring, for ignoring consensus and for tripping the block filters. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that blocks are not meant to be punitive, they're meant to educate the one being blocked or to protect the project. If that occurs, then the block has been successful. If it has not, a ban may be required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some people take these franchises waaaaaay too seriously. Aliens is one of my favourite films of all time, but this still baffles me. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am very much baffled that all of this even became such a big issue to begin with. Still suspect that this has all really got to with some sort of dislike towards the AVP-brand and the shared universe. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@TurokSwe: it'd not about a dislike of a brand, it's about your approach to editing. If you had stepped back and discussed without edit warring, we wouldn't be discussing this here. It took me a few years (and a few blocks) to understand that. Have you seen Wikipedia:Five pillars? Item four, "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility", includes the key to why we are here. NOTHERE (linked above) might also be an informative read for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the history, TurokSwe actually broke 3RR twice on two separate articles on 1-2 January, quite apart from edit-warring on other articles. I am extremely unimpressed with the edit-warring coupled with edit-summaries threatening people who he is reverting ([489], [490]) The user appears to be far too invested in these articles, to the extent on repeateadly inserting material not sourced to reliable sources. A topic ban may be the best way forward, though a block is clearly indicated if any further edit-warring occurs. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I for one support this decision, I have been following this issue since it appeared at WP:DRN, and I think a topic ban would be the best course of action as long as no more edit warring occurs. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand what I've supposedly done wrong, I really don't, and I find this whole issue very odd. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

How can you not understand that you've both edit warred and ignored guidlines about how navboxes should be used? It is hard for me to grasp that you could possibly still not understand what people have already told you several times unless you're just willingly refusing to understand it. This is getting very frustrating, please at least read the navbox page and get it from the source if you trully do not get why people are telling you to stop adding all these navboxes.★Trekker (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also support a topic ban for this user. I feel that six months editing in other topic areas might help them understand our policies better. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is just as frustrating for me, as I still cannot see what I've supposedly done wrong, especially that it would cause this much of a stir. It's insane and it makes absolutely no sense. - TurokSwe (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not understanding the issue does not excuse you from continuing with the conduct. You have been shown the rules concerning unreliable sources, edit-warring, consensus and navboxes every day - you should know this after your previous blocks for the very same reasons. And, again - I cannot believe I am saying this - you are edit-warring with others on this very day. You could literally not have chosen a worse time to do this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, you're just refusing to accept it. I have sympathy for you, I have edit warred in the past and made poor decisions. But one has to accept that they've been wrong to fix this kind of problem. Please do that or I doubt many other will show much sympathy in this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Check the user's block log. They were edit warring in other topic areas too. They eventually received an indef block in 2013 and then a second chance in 2014. I do not think a topic ban will help because the trouble will just move to another media/pop culture topic. If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to place an indef block. We can't let a small number of difficult editors make editing miserable for the majority of peaceful editors. @TurokSwe: do you still not understand the problem? Understanding is the first step toward changing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: I wouldn't argue with that. Even after this ANI earlier today (which they clearly read, because they replied to it, saying "I still cannot see what I've supposedly done wrong"), they went straight back to edit-warring five minutes later on at least four of the same articles. Enough is enough, I think. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Seems pretty clear cut to me. Jehochman's summary of the situatuion is entirely on point. Time for an indef. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: I couldn't have said it better. I've been editing for twelve years, know the rules well and am not afraid of being bold, but I'm not going to edit any Alien articles until this AN/I is closed, as I'll only get exhausted with the spammy notifications about this editor edit-warring compulsively. They haven't edited in two days, but I'm guessing that's because they're intending to make this topic go stale, so they can just go back at it after it's closed. I generally assume good faith, but considering that they've stated that every action of theirs was justified, this one escapes my good will. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• @DarthBotto: - I shouldn't block them until their next incident of edit warring. For the moment I may just tell them to behave as if they are under a 1RR restriction and if they get into another edit war, I will indef them. You let me know if it happens again. I think we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: Okay, sounds like a plan. I've really been hoping to contribute to pages, but it feels like they've been tangled up in a sticky mess. So long as there's the understanding, we can close this. Thank you for your time and input. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support that. I'm assuming Black Kite is correct in that TurokSwe broke 3RR. There was clearly no exemption, and as noted the editor themselves was faulting others for edit warring and say it's not how disputes are resolved. Then they come here and tell us they don't understand what they did wrong (and fault others for bias to boot). If an editor cannot understand such a simple basic bright line rule like 3RR after all this time, I don't see them having any hope being able to edit productively. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editor Cpt.Macktavish

The following discussion is closed. 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, the above user is repeatedly adding "Azerbaijani" to several articles without any sources and consensus with misleading edit summaries like "added content" : [491], [492], [493]. I warned him, but he refuses to get the point : [494]. I think that admin intervention is required here. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not here, non collegial, and now blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

'twas Ad Orientem wot done the deed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim, by the way, since it's not too late for that yet, happy new year to you and yours. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thanks to him too.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

NPOV and balance issues at Mitch McConnell

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

---

I would like an administrator to review this discussion and weigh in on User:Snooganssnoogans' interventions in the article itself as well as the Talk page. It is my opinion that the user blatantly disregards the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia and makes it impossible for well-intentioned editors to enhance the article. Though I am requesting review of the user's actions on this page in particular, a review of the user's other contributions will reveal a disturbing pattern. I believe that the remedial measures required to correct this user's behavior are out of my league, and would appreciate the help of experienced users/administrators. Please note that the user in question has created an entry at the Neutral point of view Noticeboard regarding the sentence in the article that gave rise to the current skirmish, but, as I said, the issue is much bigger than just that sentence. Of course, by requesting review of this user's conduct I am fully aware that I will subject my own conduct to administrator scrutiny, which I welcome. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Rajulbat (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

• @Rajulbat: My first impression is that you ought to follow the advice already given, which is to now justify your actions at the article talk page and seek consensus for the change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh,and have you partaken in the NPOV discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  The NPOV discussion started after the one on the article talk page and before any discussion had even started there on the topic. It's premature to take to NPOV.--v/r - TP 22:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Snoo is still editing in ARBPOL articles. Since the drive-by mass inclusion of undue material into biographies AE case, their behavior has been brought up multiple times and each time it's determined to be just under the threshold for action to be taken. They're playing the line well.--v/r - TP 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly. Snoogans has single-handedly driven more than a few editors away from american political articles due to their relentless reverting. See their talk page and history for more edit warring warnings than I've ever seen on one person's talk page. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Natureium, I'm getting the feeling that you're all over ANI trying to get people blocked and banned. Now, here's a thing: you either prove that "single-handedly driven more than a few editors away from american political articles" or just shut up: it is an awful accusation, it should not be made lightly, and as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty foul personal attack, an uncollegial low blow. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't remember ever having a disagreement with you before, so I really can't figure why you're greatly exaggerating and making accusations against me in both of the only two threads at ANI that I've commented on. (Not quite "all over ANI", now is it?) The only two editors I've mentioned both have an indisputable record of edit warring. Why are you trying to turn this on me? Natureium (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• This seems like an edit war over sentence construction, because unless I'm missing something, both versions are basically saying the same thing. I see it now, (thanks to MastCell) - attributing the material directly to just one source and deleting the other sources. Nope, can't do that without following: If you're the one making the change, then you have to gain consensus from the community via the talk page.RandomGnome (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• As best I can tell, the question revolves around this material in Mitch McConnell's biography. Snooganssnoogans has repeatedly inserted it, citing several reliable sources which back the wording in question. Rajulbat has repeatedly removed the material, replacing it with an statement directly attributed to the New York Times.

  From a content policy perspective, Rajulbat's actions are pretty questionable. He is repeatedly reverting the text to suggest that it is the Times, and only the Times, which contends that McConnell's reputation suffered. To address this issue, Snooganssnoogans added several other reliable sources making the same point—thus demonstrating that it is not solely supported the Times. Nonetheless, Rajulbat keeps removing the additional reliable sources and adding back language attributing the conclusion solely to the Times ([495], [496]). That's poor editing on Rajulbat's part; he is insisting that the wording be attributed only to the Times, and at the same time deleting other reliable sources demonstrating wider support for the material.

  From a technical standpoint, both Rajulbat and Snooganssnoogans are edit-warring. From a practical standpoint, I'm not inclined to take any administrative action other than warning both editors to stop. I would add that if I were handing out sanctions, I would look less favorably on Rajulbat because his role here seems questionable for the reasons described one paragraph up.

  As for Snooganssnoogans's pattern of behavior, I'm not particularly familiar with him and not in a position to judge, but if that is a serious concern then it should be raised with appropriate supporting data either here or at WP:AE. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  The link I have above is an AE case. I agreed to let it close w/o action after a commitment by Snoo to improve. I don't see much of that.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell's comment in full. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I too am concerned by Rajulbat's behavior. It seems clear from coverage in a range of reliable sources that McConnell's reputation as a master tactician suffered because of the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act as he had promised. It is not productive to focus on the wording of the New York Times headline and it ought to be simple to agree on wording less colloquial than "takes a hit". The discussion at Talk: Mitch McConnell has taken on a bizarre tone, with Rajulbat commenting, "There are many blog websites where Snoogans can express Snoogans' opinions for free. There are also web hosting services, like GoDaddy (no affiliation), where Snoogans can obtain Snoogans' very own domain in exchange for a minimal monetary investment. For example, "snooganssnoogans.com" is available to register for $2.99." To me, it seems quite creepy that Rajulbat is researching domain names for Snooganssnoogans, and then accusing them of trying to "smear" McConnell. I encourage Rajulbat to back off. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm amazed. This dispute is not about the sentence in question. The issue is chronic. When I look at Snoo's edit history, the page that User:TParis linked above, and this page, I see that the problem has been remarkably well documented. When I initiated this notice, I accidentally linked to the entry on the POV Noticeboard when I meant to link to the Talk page of the article. If you guys have thoroughly reviewed the foregoing links and don't see a POV problem, then I will take User:Cullen328's advice and back off. But I'm definitely not the first to notice.--Rajulbat (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Rajulbat, can you explain why you researched the availability of a domain name for the other editor and accused them of "smearing" McConnell? Can you explain why you removed the other sources besides the NYT? Don't you see how problematic your own behavior has been here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain. I checked the availability of the domain name and reported its availabilityto emphasize my point that Snoo's edits are, in my opinion, extremely biased. The point I was making is that it is not necessary for Snoo to push their POV on Wikipedia articles; that instead of expressing their own POV in the voice of Wikipedia, Snoo should take advantage of other fora meant for personal opinions. This way, the value of Wikipedia as a nonpartisan resource for factual information could be preserved. The reason I accused Snoo of smearing McConnell is because they are intent on packing the article full of literature that casts McConnell in a bad light without the slightest attempt at neutrality. The reason I removed the other sources was because from my point of view they were added exclusively for the purpose of saving the sentence. I removed it in the first place because it was expressed in the voice of Wikipedia (i.e., [Wikipedia says that] McConnell's reputation dimmed when...) and because of the reasons I explained very verbosely on the McConnell talk page. CTRL + F "-because of its not being supported by the linked article text, its disproportionate placement, its presentation as a fact despite being derived solely from a headline, the unverifiability of its assertion, the lack of logical grounds for the assertion, and the reverting editor's failure to explain why the sentence should be included". To be perfectly clear, this is not about McConnell. Frankly, I'm not a fan. But who cares? What I'm trying to convey is that the issue is with Snoo's effecting the opposite of neutrality through hisedits in multiple articles about American political figures.--Rajulbat (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Snoo has taken a very deliberate and direct approach to edit purely negative material into BLPs of political beliefs he disagrees with. It's well documented in my link above. Why is that not considered, here?--v/r - TP 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the negative content is well supported by RS. This is starting to take on the appearance of nothere behavior on the OP's part-- as if he is trying to whitewash the McConnell page. And the assertion that Snoo is the one with an agenda seems a bit preemptive. Snoo's no saint and the past problems make him a soft target for this sort of attack. I have not read through OP's edits, but wonder what sort of pattern might emerge if one did. Perhaps some sort of TBAN is needed?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your not going to impose sanctions without looking at the user's edits I hope? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dlohcierekim: I think we're very far from NOTHERE for Rajulbat. We're talking about the different between a content issue, which can be talked about on the article talk page, and a persistant bias and behavioral issue on Snoo's part that is well documented (by me) over a long period of time. A deliberate effort to skew a topic area. Yes, his edits are cited. But his efforts are focused on adding negative material to conservative BLPs solely. That sustained and deliberate effort skews the topic area as a whole. And, despite a long term persistant SPA (with minor token edits outside of the topic area) being involved, you're ready to throw the book at the OP for arguing that only one citation is needed (a content issues)? I don't think that's a fair evaluation of this long term issue.--v/r - TP 00:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In what little familiarity I have with Snoo, they have demonstrated a left bias, I don't know if it's anything actionable, but let's look at the issue more closely and not rush a boomerang. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to review them. I'm just a law school student from Houston who is a big fan of Wikipedia. I contribute where and when I can. My motivation is thoroughly documenting facts and making knowledge freely available. I began editing McConnell's page a few days ago when I went to look him up (he's been in the news, ya know) and was astonished by the bias. Fortunately, I was on Winter break (until Monday) and was able to dedicate some time to improving the article. Unfortunately, I ran into Snoo who aggressively made that impossible.--Rajulbat (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

If the original sentence is supported by RS, then on the face of it I'm not seeing the 'neutrality' issue raised by Rajulbat (though yes, the RS broadly have a dim view of McConnell, rightly or wrongly, and this is naturally reflected in the article and that sentence, how could it not be?). If they want to make changes, then it has to be hammered out on the article's talk page and not done unilaterally for the sake of the perceived neutrality of one editor on a crusade to cudgel bias out of the project. I think sanctions against Rajulbat are inappropriate, though. I would point to Snooganssnoogan's less than cordial opening approach, labeling the changes as 'bizarre' and 'poorly worded'. Hardly the greatest way to prevent an edit-war. RandomGnome (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I don't see anything wrong with saying that the domain name is available. He's essentially saying, in a pointed way, that there are other more appropriate venues for someone to spread their political beliefs. It's not creepy at all. It's just a dramatic way to do it. I think your concern, there, is making a mountain out of a mole hill.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• TParis, I agree with you that it is dramatic and pointed, and I also think that it is creepy and counterproductive. I operate two websites myself and if some Wikipedia editor set out to research the price and availability of a third website domain for me, I would be seriously creeped out. It is bizarre behavior in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what we're doing here. Snooganssnoogan makes an edit which obviously improves the article: nothing on Wikipedia should start with "The New York Times published an article called..." That's terrible writing, and it actually misunderstands what Wikipedia does, which is to represent what secondary sources say, not write that secondary sources said something, and prefacing that with "however" which makes it both original research and editorial commentary. ("McConnell has a reputation as a skilled strategist, but the NYT published something whose title said his reputation was damaged, so..........draw your own conclusion"?)

  "Left bias" or not, changing "However, the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful" to "However, this reputation took a hit..." is simply an improvement. And even if it weren't, that one edit isn't a good reason to start an ANI thread. And if the editor has a pattern of disruption (which has yet to be established), then AE is the proper venue. So, yeah, the very facts here suggest that the person filing the complaint needs to reconsider what they were doing here. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • As I said, I took it to AE and I was supportive of it closing due to Snoo's commitment to improve. That hasn't happened. He's willing to operate within the firm rules only after he's brought through the ringer as clearly demonstrated with diffs. But, if he can get away with it, he will.

    He's been involved in a persistent effort to edit purely negative information into Conservative BLPs. With the exception of token edits outside of the topic area, it's primarily his single purpose. Perhaps a new AE case is warranted. It's long-term civil POV pushing. There is no smoking gun, you have to look at his behavior over time.--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    • @TParis: I'll file a new AE case. Fortunately, you did a lot of the heavy lifting in your first one, so I stand on the shoulders of giants. Thanks.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

This looks to me like a content dispute that probably shouldn't be on ANI, but is now turning into TParis V Snoo, I'm no admin, but I suggest closing this unless someone presents clear diffs of alleged wrongdoing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Concur.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: This is not a content issue. The notice at the top of this page says it is for chronic misconduct, so it looked like the right place when I created the notice. The issue is that Snoo is here on a mission that is diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission. Namely, he's here (IMHO and in that of many others who have run into this user, which I will prove) to make sure that if a person looks up a conservative politician or mouthpiece (which, again, I'm no fan; it's the principle) they get nothing but negative stories plus his interpretation of them; mostly following a pattern of, more or less, "Even though these three top-tiered irrefutable experts have established that X, John Doe falsely claimed Y." He backs it up with sources, yes, but that doesn't solve the obvious neutrality issues caused by his deliberate framing and cherrypicking. And this is despite other editors, and some admins, on other pages warning him of this very same thing. As TP very aptly described it, he plays the line very well; he'll engage just enough so that he's not in clear violation of WP policies. Meaning that anyone who wants anything done about it has to study his edit history as well as WP rules of civil procedure (or something) in preparation for an AE complaint. I've never done one before. But that's fine; I'll do one.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Jumping back to the searching for a website gaff, I feel that was a bit of hyperbole that came off badly. I don't believe the OP meant anything more than to say "Snooganssnoogans needs to be more neutral as this is not Snooganssnooganspedia and if they want to make their own POV a priority they should get their own web site." Jumping back to the beginning, I think this is a content dispute that has been blown out of proportion and that (once again) the content should be discussed on the article talk page and consensus should be obtained for any change that is the source of contention.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: re: the domain name, your interpretation is correct.--Rajulbat (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

It is a case of personalising a dispute, and it's a rather creepy personalisation that feels very stalkery. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the choices, this isn't great content

However, the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful.

1. The point being made here is "the New York Times published an article". Why should we care that they published an article?
2. This edit doesn't use the NYT article as a source except to verify the fact that the source exists.

Wikipedia articles should report on what reliable sources consider worth saying, not on the fact that sources say things. There's an implicit commentary on the source - albeit one that will mean different things to different people. Anything that plays off people's preconceptions (NYT is good, NYT is bad) runs afoul of NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree but content considerations should go on Talk:Mitch McConnell. I think this ANI should be closed - no much appetite for action against Snoogansnoogans and consensus seems largely this is a content dispute - there also appears to be a consensus against the OP's text per WP:NPOVN and this ANI - which would seem contrary to claims that Snoogansnoogans is pushing a POV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 abuse by Swedish moderators

The following discussion is closed. 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 would like point out to moderator abuse by swedish moderators Yger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Adville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The abuse has taken place on the article https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omvänd_rasism

In the case of Adville:

The moderator in question has repeatedly reverted my changes without commenting on why. When questioned, he then accused me of instigating an editing war. You can see that this is a blatantly false accusation since I did in fact document and motivate my changes.

Furthermore, in the discussion page of said article, Adville motivates his action of locking the page by referring to an effort by a swedish nationalist/white power group and insinuates that I am a part of said groups efforts. That unfounded accusation alone is profoundly against the etiquette code moderators are to follow.

In the case of "Yger":

I have repeatedly provided proper sources to my additions, yet Yger keeps removing them. When questioned, he states the sources go against "consensus" but fails to prove that that personal opinions of the moderators trumps scientific, proper sources. In my attempt at communicating with "Yger" he simply removed my question and refused to answer. When questioned by a different editor, Yger simply states that he refuses to discuss the issue. Lastly, he seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of Wikipedia as he motivates what can and can't be written by how "liked" additions are, rather by how well-sourced they are. Not only does Wikipedia lack any sort of "like/dislike" voting system, but it does not support Ygers claim as stated in the five pillars of Wikipedia ("All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.") Kind regard, Horiwari (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. We cannot help you what-so-ever on the Swedish-language Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Horiwari: If there is an issue with a Swedish admin, please take the case to sv:Wikipedia:Skiljedomskommitté, the Swedish arbitration committee. This should only be done if discussion in other, Swedish, venues does not lead to a resolution. Thanks! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mopping up after closure of a Swedish WP Arbcom case [497]. EEng 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is worth pointing out that editing against consensus, misrepresenting sources/using unreliable sources, and using POV language in articles (as the OP has been doing) is not acceptable at en.wiki either, so the responses would have been the same they got at sv.wiki. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Haha, those Swedish moderators! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A Møøse once bit my sister. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 on Pilaf

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

---

There is a violation of WP:DE rules going on in the article Pilaf. A small group of editors are repeatedly removing sourced content [498], [499], [500] and are working hard to distort the content of the references. They have been warned here [501] about not doing so. They have threatened me for violating copyright rules [502], when in reality an admin user:Galobtter said no such rule was broken [503] in what seems to be an attempt to divert and distort. They also claim Oxford and Cambridge references are Junk references and could not find a mention [504] when everything is referenced and quoted, which shows their lack of respect for proper process and which was noted by another user as being false and misleading in the talk page [505]. This group is also making stuff up, such as that the dish has a mixed West Asian and South Asian origin [506] which none of the sources say, while removing the sources in the history section. This seems to be a very organized attempt at conducting WP:DE where they flood the history section with edits that are not referenced, unsourced, unverified, made-up, false, and wrong. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There's some forum shopping going on here. I'm sure I saw this complaint at the Edit Warring noticeboard yesterday or the day before. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute with an edit summary of "Guys, please calm down. When there is a dispute, the page should remain at WP:STATUSQUO. It will be put back in a week or so once everyone agrees in the talk page." Advice I heartily endorse. I've fully protected it for now while the regulars sort and sift.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Except you've protected it in the non-status quo version :) AFAICS that would be the 18 December version. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, turned back-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Being informed that the English spelling is influenced by the Modern Greek piláfi, which comes from the Turkish pilav, which in turn comes from Persian polow, Hindi: pulāo, from Sanskrit pulāka (meaning "a ball of rice"), which in turn, is probably of Dravidian origin, the competent reader is supposed to deduce by herself that pilaf is a way to cook rice, and by extension some other cereals. Sanskrit & Dravidian seem to contradict most likely originating from Iran despite the 11 quotations given, but who cares since the competent reader has most likely swapped for a better lecture about this recipe. Pldx1 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 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.

---

diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IP one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Bbb23 and User:Joshua Jonathan. FYI, I note that this IP is doing the same edits [507] as was done by the blocked sock Special:Contributions/Damian_Bronson of WP:LTA User:Wikiexplorer13. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: could be, but it's a dynamic IP on a busy range so we probably wouldn't do much more than block it for a week anyway. If they start up again afterwards it would be worthwhile to report the IP to SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for blocking user User:84.211.38.17

The following discussion is closed. 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 vast majority (if not all) of his contributions (Special:Contributions/84.211.38.17) are disruptive and have been reverted by multiple various editors. He has been warned in his talk page and continues this behaviour. His edits in Mike Oldfield and Steve Aoki are particularly bad because of their quantity and repetition:

• Mike Oldfield
  1. [508] reverted in [509]
  2. [510] reverted in [511] (it was an edit with the same content as the previous
  3. [512] reverted in [513] (same content)

• Steve Aoki
  1. [514] and [515] reverted in [516]
  2. [517] reverted in [518]
  3. [519] and [520] reverted in [521]
  4. [522] reverted in [523]

Aisteco (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a vandalism only account to me. looking at his edit history hes been doing similar things to a bunch of pages. For instance [[524]] [[525]], which is reverted here [[526]] and then does it again. [[527]] which i reverted just now here [[528]] Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock 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.

---

• 106.198.165.224
• 106.199.32.152

These two IPs have been creating the same edits to several articles relating to India. Perhaps a rangeblock would prevent this from happening again. -INeedSupport- ^:3 02:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't notified the IPs due to WP:DENY. I have been warned not to do it at an earlier instance. -INeedSupport- ^:3 02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them both. It's a very big range to block (106.128.0.0/16) and it looks like there are other addresses available to that provider (it's an Indian mobile phone company) outside that range. I have posted elsewhere to see if we can take an alternative route. It may also be possible to semi-protect articles if the same ones are being hit all of the time. Black Kite (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Malfunctioning bot

The following discussion is closed. 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:RonBot task #7 seems to have gone awry (example here, "not categorized by position" cat added when already in "football defenders" cat), could the bot be shut off until the issue is fixed? S.A. Julio (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio:. As requested, I have blocked User:RonBot for 24 hours. @Ronhjones: something has gone wrong here, which needs fixing.

Other admins, please feel free to unblock when the problem is resolved.

@S.A. Julio, please put an ANI notice on User talk:Ronhjones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: @S.A.Julio: no need I have already notified Ronhjones, see here. Thank you for correcting the problem. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Inter&anthro: I see no mention there of this ANI thread.

C'mon, it's in the edit notice on this page. Not optional. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: That was because when I posted on Ronhjones's talk page, I had not yest posted here. It was only after looking at his edit history that I realised that he probably would not edit for several more hours so that's when I posted here, not noticing that S.A. Julio had already posted. I hope that clears things up, I will notify Ronhjone's of this thread. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Inter&anthro. But it shouldn't have taken an hour after the first post here and 30 mins plus two nudges after your post to give Ron an explicit link. The big orange editnotice should be enough reminder to do it promptly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, especially to Ronhjone. I guess I just got a bit too caught up in the moment, it will not happen again. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd already left a message regarding the issue, this wasn't as much a "discussion about an editor" but rather request for quick assistance (though notice now added). S.A. Julio (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem a bit snippy about this, @S.A. Julio and Inter&anthro. I know that this was brought to ANI only to find a way of stopping the bot pending a fix to its code, not as a call to do-something-about-a-rogue-editor. Neither of you suggested or implied any misconduct.

However, I have seen many times how once an issue is raised at ANI, it can spiral in unexpected directions. So it's best to make sure that the editor involved receives a prompt and prominent notice which clearly says ANI. That way they can respond quickly to any escalation of concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello a bot called RonBot, has been recently adding Category:Association footballers not categorized by position where the category of the footballer's position is already present. See 1, 2 and 3 for examples. This has the potential to be disruptive and the bot seems to be running away on this edit spree, so if an admin could shut it off temporarily that would be appreciated. I have contacted the user who runs the bot in question. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Done (and sections merged). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the bot's edits need to be rollbacked ASAP. GiantSnowman 08:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I want to think this is just a great self-deprecating joke by someone who's acutely self-aware and has a good sense of humor.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  09:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallows humour. GiantSnowman 09:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(Though, it does need sorting...) GiantSnowman 09:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I imagine once the bot is "fixed", Ronhjones can re-run it to remove the categories where necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now investigating. Bot code has not been changed (a rewrite is planned, as it's a bit slow) I suspect that for some reason the bot failed to get one (or part of one) of the lists (the bot compares two large lists). Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for stopping the run. I see S.A. Julio tried to disable it, but the disable only works at the start of the run. I suspect if re-run it would sort everything out. Therefore my plan will be to re-run, with edit lines disabled and check if it will correct all errors, if so then run and fix the errors. Then work out some plan to try to add some extra checks for future runs. Note that these dummy run and real run (if OK) will take us to midnight. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:Still not working correctly. Kante4 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, still broken - so I have re-blocked. Ron you should NOT have unblocked. GiantSnowman 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Had two windows open and saved wrong version. Aborted when I realised. Dummy run then ran for 4 hours and I stopped to examine the debug files. Bot is planning to remove the category from a lot of files. There's not enough time to run bot now - it won't start the removal process until well past bedtime! Doing a second dummy run to see the full run time - the plan will then be to check again the debug files, and if OK we will start a new run tomorrow, I can then be around to watch the edits. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I am not comfortable with you repeatedly unblocking your own bot. Not sure what @BrownHairedGirl: thinks? GiantSnowman 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocks of bot accounts are a means to stop an automated task, not a sanction. An administrator should remain free to unblock the bot accounts they operate, unless this was done as part of a sanction or would specifically overturn an action agreed by consensus elsewhere and intended to be permanent. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@all: you've kind of raised a good point: now that admins can't technically unblock themselves, should admins be prevented from unblocking accounts they operate (by policy or best practice, not by technical means)? FWIW I have no problem with Ronhjones debugging and unblocking this bot, but what if PEIsquirrelBot suddenly starts replacing all instances of Category:Politicians in Prince Edward Island with Category:Edible nuts and seeds and is blocked? Is it a good idea for me (its operator) to unblock it if I assert that I've checked and repaired the code, or should it be up to BRFA (or whoever else) to re-certify and unblock the bot? How do we know if a bot is blocked because it's malfunctioning or because it's malicious and should remain blocked? I guess we would block its operator if it was intentional? Just thinking out loud I guess, there seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Good questions, @Ivanvector & @GiantSnowman.

My take on this is that @Ronhjones's first unblocking was fine. A technical glitch in an approved task was halted by a block, as a technical measure rather than as a sanction ... and the bot owner unblocked when they believed the problem was fixed. Fine by me.

The second block should not have been needed. Ron should have been running the bot in some sort of testing mode, either by making no edits or by doing a slow-paced, limited test run. Ron should have been watching the test edits carefully, and halted it at any sign of trouble.

The first block was because of something unfortunate. The second was due to, well, carelessness.

If the bot runs amok for a third time, it would look like recklessness. At that stage I'd be warning Ron not to self-unblock.

In this case, the error was of a type which is easily revertable at any time. No matter how many subsequent edits have been made, a category can be neatly removed.

Other bot tasks are less easily reverted, and are more likely to become tangled up in subsequent edits. So I'd take a firmer line on those.

So I'd not want a total ban on unblocking one's own bot, and nor would I want any sort of formulaic threshold. Different circumstances require different responses.

If it did get to the point where a bot owner was repeatedly unblocking their malfunctioning bot and the situation didn't seem to be improving and/or the bot was doing things which were not easily reverted, then we would still have the option of blocking the owner pending suspension of the bot flag.

We're a good way off that point here ... but still, it would now be very unwise for Ron to simply made more code tweaks and let the bot start an unattended long run. I hope that Ron will now ensure that any deficiencies in the bot are dealt with by Ron, without any need for anyone to intervene. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The task that was having issues is disabled from writing and is still on debug. The unblock was to allow the other 10+ tasks to run, as they are not being an issue. Maybe we need one bot account per task, but that's quite a change. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, ec with my comment above. But I do hope that you will now treat task #7 as being in testing mode, and will not let it loose again on an unattended long run until you have done a lot of testing. If there is a third episode of someone else having to block the bot, then I would stringly advise you against a self-unblock. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Agreed. It's is still testing (no writes), when I am happy it is doing the right thing, I will start it at a time, which will enable me to watch the edits live. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, S.A. Julio, Inter&anthro, and GiantSnowman: Dummy testing run looked OK, enabled the "remove" template part only for now and ran that - bot has cleared up the error additions. Will enable the "addition" part (probably tomorrow) when I've checked a selection of indicated pages that need the template. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you got it under control, Ron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:LumaNatic

The following discussion is closed. 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 a single purpose on Wikipedia, and that is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This outburst is just the latest. This goes all the way back to his first few edits that earned him a for edit warring "enslaver" into the first sentence of biographies of prominent early Americans. More recently, he created a seventh wikiproject even though he was politely told that he should stop. I'm not sure how active the narrow WP:WikiProject White Supremacy and WP:WikiProject Slavery will be, but they seemed to have been created more to demonstrate a point than actually attempt to collaborate with other editors. He has already had people leave messages on his talk page, and he doesn't seem to care. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: He has had several categories brought to categories for deletion over the past few days, but doesn't care and continues to create new categories that fit the same criteria. Natureium (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a very clear agenda here; I recently tangled with them edit-warring to add Thomas Jefferson to Category:White supremacists [529]. I'm very concerned they are WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and will end up blocked. That said, the WikiProject creation is likely ignorance of how WikiProjects work rather than malice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have added the required notification of this discussion to their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • it was there (by Natureium), just not in its own section power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

LumaNatic states that he is a Wikipedian-in-Residence on his/her user page but I don't see her/him on the Wikimedia list. I'm paging DGG and Pharos who have also held this position to get their advice. I believe that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia that could use correction but I don't think this editor is being collaborative in their approach so the effect of their editing will be limited and I doubt all of these WikiProjects, started over a week, will last very long with only a solo contributor. My POV is that a discussion needs to happen with the editor, not a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me send a message to User:Shalor (Wiki Ed), too, to see what she thinks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

She is indeed a WIR. Shalor has extensively commented on her t/p. ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment--@Natureium and Liz:--Correct me if I have gone crazy but does the link which is used to cite hers' being a WIR (over her user-page) claim that a broader class of us, editors are white-supremacists? Read the paragraph starting with A major issue that ........ ∯WBG^converse 07:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Indef. per nom; definitely NOTHERE. And, I don't give a damn about the aspects of WIR. We don't discriminate on those aspects. ∯WBG^converse 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that’s what it says. Unfortunately for the institution, they didn’t seem to do any sort of checking before appointing the WiR because he had already been blocked prior to that and has been a net negative since the very beginning. (Also, per that same link, he’s male) Natureium (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's not what it says - he's saying Wikipedia replicates the broader status quo (which we do) and that the status quo is white supremacist (an opinion that's by no means outside the mainstream). But if he did, so what? We don't sanction editors for opinions expressed off-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Well we have done actually, but that's not the issue in this case - the problem is their behaviour on-wiki which is seriously sub-optimal. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  For opinions expressed off-wiki? Not personal attacks, not doxxing, but one-time expressions of opinions? Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  I think there are multiple expressions of opinions on-wiki which are troubling and so whether we should or shouldn't consider the off-wiki evidence is a bit of an unnecessary detour. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Guettarda, what led you to assume that anybody was proposing any sanction based on off-wiki evidence?

  AFAIS, I had not mentioned any causal relationship between my question to Nat/Liz and the indented sanction which specifically mentions per nom. Nor did Nat. ∯WBG^converse 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  Infer, not assume. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There are a number of quite serious issues here, especially for someone who is a "Wikipedian in Residence" which may suggest they have some extra editing cachet. I think we need to hear from the user quite urgently here. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I, for one, will be watching this issue closely to see how it's dealt with. I don't know much about Wikipedians in Residence or what they do exactly, but it sounds like a fairly important or even honorific title. I'm assuming good-faith, of course, but it doesn't speak well of the project that previously blocked and/or disruptive editors are promoted to this position. RandomGnome (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I admit that I have entirely run out of AGF with this editor. I don't think that a discussion is going to get a beneficial result. For an example of what a previous discussion with him yielded in the past, see the NPOV/N where he responded "False." repeatedly to concerns and accused editors of "manipulating the rules". If you read it, you'll see that he is the only one there defending his actions, with 11 editors attempting to inform him of why this was inappropriate. Natureium (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• No sanctions Looking at the presented edit history and I fail to see how this is anything more than a reasonable disagreement over what is due. Frankly, Jefferson was a slave-owner and white supremacism was the construct created to prop up slave-owning. There's been plenty of ink spilled with regard to Jefferson's hypocrisies on the issue of freedom and slavery. So to, for instance, insert Jefferson into that category seems more like WP:BOLD than WP:TEND. Perhaps we should be asking why others are edit-warring it back out. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Um, the issue reaches far further than just the edit-warring on the Jefferson article (and all the other slavery-related articles for which they were previously blocked). The problem is that we have a "Wikipedian In Residence" whose edits are in many cases not a net positive. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I honestly think some people who are willing to comment on the systemic bias of Wikipedia are a net positive for the project, even if they're occasionally straying a bit far into WP:IAR territory to do it. And we have plenty of fascists left here to clean off before we start going after the anti-racists for being inconvenient. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's a difference between pointing out systemic bias, and describing opposition to your edits as "the digital version of Charlottesville", "a hotbed of institutional white supremacy", and other manners of accusing others of racism. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well I mean, it may be slightly incendiary, but when a policy like WP:ANYONECANEDIT means that open white supremacists just have to stop short of putting actual hate speech up to stay on the project so long as they observe WP:3RR it's not an entirely non-apropos description. I'm saying that this looks a lot like trying to punish a prominent critic of the project for being prominent and critical. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• What prominent critic are you referring to? If it's LumaNatic, there is nothing prominent about him other than his multiple appearances at noticeboards for refusal to cooperate with anyone else. And WP:ANYONECANEDIT applies regardless of political stance. Referring to other editors as "fascists" is wholly inappropriate. From your talk page, your other wikipedia disputes related to politics make your POV clear. Natureium (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am referring explicitly to my experience with editors who have acted in defense of fascism or have attempted to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to smear the enemies of fascism or to insert fascist and third-positionist talking points onto a variety of political articles, a situation I have had the misfortune of dealing with on many occasions. But if you believe that A) there are no fascists editing Wikipedia, or B) that it is a worse violation of Wikipedia's norms to speak out about the presence of fascists on the platform than to allow them to continue on the platform, you're making a pretty strong case for why LumaNatic is not a net-negative to the project. And I am saying that being a WiR is a position of some prominence, and LumaNatic using the platform of being a WiR to criticize Wikipedia seems to be a main point of contention here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Using the platform to criticise Wikipedia is one thing - if that was all that was going on here I would completely agree with you (and indeed, I would agree with LumaNatic as well). However, that's not the issue we're talking about - we're talking about an editor who ignores any good-faith advice as to their problematic edits, and simply dismisses any opposing views as "racist" or "white supremacist". This is not acceptable in any shape or form, and speaking as someone who agrees with you on most social and political points, I'm surprised that you can't see this. Incidentally - [530] ("a waste of precious time by a digital WP KKK LynchMob"). Hopefully you get the point I and others are making. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you on the amount of crap that gets posted here by racists and other bigots, but we simply cannot have a situation where someone who is edit-warring and performing other sub-par editing responds to any criticism of their editing by simply claiming that the other parties must be racists. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be more inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the conflicts so explicitly link up with LumaNatic's attempts to have Wikipedia show a more complete view of historical colonizers and the architects of a white supremacist regime that has persisted and infected global consciousness not by fabrication or WP:OR but simply by choosing not to exclude details or shy away from certain critical words to describe people who have been lionized by history. Returning to the Jefferson example, perhaps it is a bit racist (at least within the systemic construct of the word) to get upset when somebody points out the man was a white supremacist. He owned black people. He built his considerable wealth on slave labour. I mean this isn't a disputed point, this is a pretty clear historical fact. So why shouldn't it be said explicitly on our platform? I suppose what I'm saying is that if being a platform that isn't welcoming to racist narratives means an occasional breakdown in WP:AGF that's a price I'm willing to pay. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Why don't you take your political commentary on wikipedia elsewhere so we can focus on the behavior of this editor? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think I've been pretty clear with how my "political commentary" ties into my opposition to sanctions against this editor. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the evidence presented here regarding LumaNatic warrants any sort of administrator-imposed or community sanction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Natureium, I think you're pretending that this Wikipedia environment is colorblind and transparent; telling one editor to take "[their] political commentary elsewhere" in a conversation about the intersection between political statements and Wikipedia editing is--well, I won't use the language that LumaNatic used, but it's pretty indicative of a serious blind spot. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's indicative of me attempting to focus this discussion on the behavior of the editor. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• You're just proving my point. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• We need to confine this conversation to evidence of LumaNatic's alleged unilateral editing, and what is best to do about that, if it exists. If people want to make a case that Jefferson should be added to whatever category, then this needs to be done in the appropriate part of the encyclopedia from consensus building using reliable sources. From what I can gather, it was LumaNatic's failure to build consensus before making edits that brought this to ANI in the first place. I'm frankly a bit disturbed by the statement that we have plenty of fascists left here to clean off before we start going after the anti-racists for being inconvenient. I think any purely agenda-driven editor needs to be stopped in their tracks and back to the sources, and should be answerable to the community, just like we we all are. If they're not willing to comply, then sanctions are absolutely appropriate for either side of even the most contentious argument. Not just the 'more favorable' side. RandomGnome (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say "failure to gain consensus" so much as completely unwilling to entertain the notion that he might be wrong. And that's already how it work. People with a clear NPOV problem are blocked. Natureium (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think you have to look too hard to see concerns that this editor is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. However, in their areas of concerns there likely are places where we have not followed what reliable sources have said and others where we have not presented those reliable sources neutrally. Someone determined to write great wrongs does us no good; someone who improves areas that are incorrect in a thoughtful and scholastic manner is a different story. I would like to hope Lumanatic can move from the former to the latter. There are definitely topics they they have brought to the encyclopedia that weren't here previously and Wikipedia is better off for having. Given their professional employ as a Wikipedian I am surprised to see the over-exuberance of creating multiple WikiProjects, but I don't think that's really actionable. Their characterization of those who disagree with them also needs improvement. If people think that is worthy of INDEFF, I would be an easy convert. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF and because I think their knowledge and interest areas could benefit the encyclopedia, perhaps a strong sanction would be enough to send a message and help them course correct. I will propose such a sanction below around the area which has been the focal point of their much of their disagreements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. It appears to me that their POV is so strong that the chances of their being a productive editor and contributing without pushing that POV are extremely slim -- AGF does not imply an expectation of behavior an editor has never shown before. I would think what would be in order is either an indef, or, less drastically, a topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed. The latter is really the only way to determine if there's any hope of getting positive contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As I stated an indef might be correct. But this user has done editing in the area of race, racism, etc that has benefitted the project and been productive. From what I have seen much, though not all, of their new article work in this area falls into that category. This editor has been highly disruptive but not exclusively so. 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's determined that an indef is not warranted, I think that the suggested topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed is the best way to halt the continuing disruption. Natureium (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories topic ban

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

---

LumaNatic is banned from categories work. This includes, but is not limited to, creating new categories, placing categories on existing articles, or participating in categories for discussion. LumaNatic may place categories on any new article they make, but may not revert (0RR) if a category they place is removed.

• Support as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see that this will be very helpful. His repeated creation of categories that are opposed to the category guidelines are more of a demonstration of his larger behavioral problem wherein he is clearly driven by an agenda and doesn't see any merit in seeking consensus, and even more disruptive, his persistent insulting of other editors. Natureium (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do think that your 0RR restriction could be helpful if applied to all of his edits, based on his penchant for edit warring. Natureium (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see this proposal solving anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there's an established pattern of behavior that suggests once categories are banned, another route will be taken for agenda pushing, including disruptive editing and insulting behavior. These have already been demonstrated. The discussion above talks about a previous block. RandomGnome (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't address the main issue; the problems with categories are only a symptom of a wider problem. Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BK and Nat. ∯WBG^converse 08:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my previous comment that I don't see anything worthy of sanction here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but only just: there's clearly a problem here but I don't think a ban on editing categories is going to hit the right target. A broad topic ban such as Beyond My Ken proposed above would be a more logical solution, although I also feel that this editor is is on a fast NOTHERE track. But there's lots they could do on Wikipedia that doesn't have to do with their ideology where they can demonstrate they're interested in making a proper encyclopedia rather than making something akin to the opposite of Rightpedia, which is not Wikipedia's place. As much as I or any of us might feel obliged to acknowledge their POV, it has no place here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

Since LumaNatic has been editing wikipedia since this thread opened and has ignored the talk pages messages and pings, I think we need to go forward with trying to come up with a solution to this. I'm open to other suggestions, but I think that the topic ban suggested by Beyond My Ken above is a good one. Thus I am proposing a topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. He has proven that he can not edit in these areas in a collegial manner and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Natureium (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Not mentioned above (that I can see), but I have seen what I would classify as disruptive behavior (creation of seven new WikiProjects, some point-y, all with just a single participant) in the Wikipedia:WikiProject space as well, most related to the areas covered by the proposed topic ban, including one Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom colonies for which there is not yet a mainspace article (though the the user has a userspace draft for it, here, so it is coming). I did userfy that project, so it is now red. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The complete lack of willingness to communicate or cooperate with the community, before and after the issue was posted here, merits Beyond My Ken's solution. RandomGnome (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support it would have been good if LumaNatic had come here to discuss the issues, but since they have been editing and have ignored this, then I don't see another option. OK, so they did turn up and comment, only to confirm that a sanction is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per tone-deaf reaction below. Kleuske (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I don't think the project needs the ongoing disruption, and the obliviousness displayed below promises no change. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per tone-deaf reaction below (thanks Kleuske!). Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per actions current and previous, and per the amazing demonstration below of inability (or lack of desire) to work within a community. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious outcome is obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Yes, this is clearly required at this time. Fish+Karate 12:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Speaking as someone who has placed many topic bans (mainly in the ipa area, also some in American politics), I have doubts about such a wide topic ban (very broadly construed, yet) with such porous borders. It seems like an invitation to innocent mistakes, and also to testing/pushing the envelope. I would prefer an indefinite block, with the option to appeal in six months. But if there is no appetite for that, as seems to be the case, I will support the proposed topic ban. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
  • I would be all for an indefinite block if there was support for it. Especially after reading his response below. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in lieu of indef as proposed by Bishonen. Crying "racism" in order to not accept criticism is not compatible with a collaborative environment. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the Bishonen angle on this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, I see problems, esp. with the categories (including the Thomas Jefferson kerfuffle). What I don't see is some sort of serious problem. They were blocked in August, but not since then; the talk page reveals no efforts by anyone except for Shalor and Magnolia677 to actually talk to the editor. And it certainly does not reveal that there is some widespread problem with the user's edits that a lot of editors have latched on to, a problem so widespread and serious that it impedes article improvement, etc. A ban from categories is a much more decent option than an indefinite block. No, what I see mostly here is an editor about to get blocked because of some incendiary comments and a few minor content disagreements, disagreements brought here and blown up (in my opinion) mostly by one single editor. Surely we have thicker skin than what we're showing here. User:Dlohcierekim, I'll just name you since you're right up here and I love you like a brother, so what if they cry "racism"--lots of editors have done so in the past, in various article areas, and the project is still running. If LumaNatic adds "Category:White supremacists" to the Jefferson article again, block them for disruption/edit warring, that's fine--but really, is this one strongly-opinionated editor such a huge problem? I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you name checked Dlohcierekim let me echo their point above say that the cries of racism are being used to not hear criticism. There is a lack of understanding of Wikipedia if they honestly thought that Simonm223's comments resolved the concerns of multiple editors. And this is coming from someone who see value in some of what he does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I know, Barkeep49, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but for the utterly ludicrous reply that they made to this post which is collapsed below, which completely convinced me that if we don't do anything this time, we'll simply be back here very shortly indeed. Yes, I know that their block was five months ago, but that reply (and their comments on the CFD discussions) told me that the person who referred to people who disagree with them as "a digital WP KKK LynchMob" and "the digital version of Charlottesville" still has absolutely no self-awareness about how to edit in a collaborative environment. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Black Kite, I'm feeling you, and I think that comment was ridiculous. But at least that one was a while ago; I wonder if we'd be here if the user had been warned and/or blocked at that time, I don't know. And their comment here didn't help. And yet I have two considerations that lead me to say "no"--first, we would block on comments made (and not a lot of comments!) more than on article edits; that's fine, and I've blocked plenty of editors for that, but we don't always drop indefinite blocks for a few comments, unless they are just really way over the top, racist, sexist, whatnot. We'd block and say "think about what you said"; come back next week. You know we have plenty of editors who have caused others problems, and an indef block is not usually the first solution. Look at the block log of someone like Ihardlythinkso (who got unblocked recently, for which I am glad).

Second, I am a bit concerned that we'd do so in a pretty antagonistic environment (the editor is of course partly guilty) without much of a prelude; typically we don't drop these kinds of blocks unless things have been discussed at length, or at least attempts have been made to discuss things at length. I don't want to absolve this editor of everything, but yeah I'll break a lance for them. BTW I find it not easy to disagree with you, or Mike, or Bishonen, but in this case I do. Thanks Black Kite, Drmies (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but me you find it easy to disagree with? What, I'm such a zhlub? Oy vay iz mir! <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Editor has demonstrated a lack of desire to work within the parameters established by the community. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in lieu of indef as proposed by Bishonen. Seems to be the best option to me. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I support the general idea here, but I'm concerned about the details. I'm unclear what exactly this ban would cover - and if I am, you can be pretty sure the editor subject to the ban will slip up sooner or later. Would this cover all things Trump-related, bearing in mind a number of commentators have called him a white supremacist in the past few days? Would this cover China? Tibet? Ottoman Empire? Franco-Prussian War? Cyprus? South Sudan? Partition of India? Reconquista? Brexit? World War II? Diocletian? The Exodus? Those are only a random selection of really obvious ones that come to mind; I'm sure there are much more subtle cases of very wide-ranging topics that would seem to be caught up in this ban. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would assume those would be covered if he's editing them in a way related to any of the subjects mentioned in the topic ban. Although an article like China may have topics that he is banned from, editing the tourism industry related section would be fine. Clearly any article where the topic itself falls under the ban would not be allowed. If this is too complex, there are several people in support of an indef. Either way, this topic ban proposal has been open for 2 days with nearly unanimous support, so unless someone wants to propose an indef instead (or in addition to), someone should probably close it. Natureium (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with @Natureium:: We'll know it when we see it. As will LumaNatic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in deference to Drmies' effort to explain things to the user on their talk page. Perhaps we should be making more of an effort to incubate/mentor/whatever users who clearly want to participate but aren't fitting in with how things work here, although I usually endorse blocks for this sort of behaviour because we just don't have enough community energy to mentor everybody and shouldn't be expected to. I will say the diatribe below is not encouraging, but let's see what happens. Should that not be productive then I support Bishonen's indef block alternative, because we also really don't have the energy to police such a broad ban, though I hope that if it comes to that then there might be some indication that we can shorten the six months appeal restriction. We'll know it when we see it, as they say. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  He shouldn't be topic banned... because Drmies gave him advice? He's been given advice in the past and ignored all of it. Enforcing a topic ban is going to be less energy than all the cleaning up and discussion and attempting to persuade that we've been doing so far. Natureium (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• No rush. LumaNatic has not edited since posting to ANI; there is no ongoing damage to the encyclopedia or other emergency requiring action immediately. 48 hours is not a long time (it has been often said that not everyone can log in every day, and those who can shouldn't hold it against those who can't). LumaNatic indicated in his post below that he would have trouble answering within 48 hours ("It has barely been 48 hours!"). Since then, multiple editors have engaged on LumaNatic's talk page, and LumaNatic has engaged back, specifically stating that he is having a busy week ("This week is quite hectic for me..."). Let's give LumaNatic time to see if he has taken on board the community's concerns here. It's true, we'll know it when we see it, so let's wait and see rather than rush to close this thread. As long as the editor doesn't go back to their prior pattern of editing before addressing the concerns here, why not give it a couple more days, even through the weekend, when editors may have more time? Levivich (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, everyone: This incident has already been resolved per Simonm223's "No sanctions" Tendentious argument

Tendentious argument
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has barely been 48 hours! And per Simonm223's ... I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the evidence presented here regarding LumaNatic warrants any sort of administrator-imposed or community sanction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) and I have been swamped with work. Hold your ropes - give a brotha/hermano/Jo-sda-da-hnv-tli some time before you string him up, in the year of (y)our dear lord! (Is the ice broken, yet?!). In any event, I've now responded: I defer to my betters: the No Sanctions admin has said everything I could say, but much better of course: "Looking at the presented edit history and I fail to see how this is anything more than a reasonable disagreement over what is due. Frankly, Jefferson was a slave-owner and white supremacism was the construct created to prop up slave-owning. There's been plenty of ink spilled with regard to Jefferson's hypocrisies on the issue of freedom and slavery. So to, for instance, insert Jefferson into that category seems more like WP:BOLD than WP:TEND. Perhaps we should be asking why others are edit-warring it back out. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Which says it better than I could, as well as: "...this looks a lot like trying to punish a prominent critic of the project for being prominent and critical." - Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)" and: LumaNatic using the platform of being a WiR to criticize Wikipedia seems to be a main point of contention here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC) and of course I agree this sums up the reason for this whole she-bang in the very first place: * I'd be more inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the conflicts so explicitly link up with LumaNatic's attempts to have Wikipedia show a more complete view of historical colonizers and the architects of a white supremacist regime that has persisted and infected global consciousness not by fabrication or WP:OR but simply by choosing not to exclude details or shy away from certain critical words to describe people who have been lionized by history. Returning to the Jefferson example, perhaps it is a bit racist (at least within the systemic construct of the word) to get upset when somebody points out the man was a white supremacist. He owned black people. He built his considerable wealth on slave labour. I mean this isn't a disputed point, this is a pretty clear historical fact. So why shouldn't it be said explicitly on our platform?....-Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC) and of course, this: No, that's not what it says - he's saying Wikipedia replicates the broader status quo (which we do) and that the status quo is white supremacist (an opinion that's by no means outside the mainstream). But if he did, so what? We don't sanction editors for opinions expressed off-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC) With that said, the Columbia University Oral History blogpost that seemed to cause so much unwarranted angst and confusion is the result of a developing WikiProject (Oral History) with my Masters program, as are the other WikiProjects listed on my userpage, with various on-campus departments, institutions, organizations - but are in development so I can't say any more about them, just yet - stay tuned. WikiHBCU/IO and Freedom Colonies developed from WikiCon presentations, and are also in development... I have no agenda to push, or any of these other unsubstantiated accusations that have already been dismantled, rebutted and refuted by those with much greater insight than I. I stand by their decision of No Sanctions. Sure, I'm WP:BOLD and I do avoid the pettiness that doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia like the plague- I learned that lesson in my early months that some seem to have dug up in trying to find.... something, I guess. But its all in good faith despite my relative newness (or just plain grad work overload!). I don't know how many other ways this can be said. Anything else just seems like a vendetta intent on some sort of punishing, as the Admin so eloquently stated, and well, you know - that's no bueno, and maybe needs an Interaction Block if this continues. Happy WikiDay! (in 4 days!)~ LumaNatic (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Simonm223 is not an admin. 86.147.97.63 (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Jefferson was a white supremacist" is a fairly common viewpoint these days, especially after Charlottesville. [531] [532] [533] [534] [535] [536] [537] [538] The problem is, instead of adding these sources and this viewpoint to Thomas Jefferson (which doesn't yet mention "white supremacy"), Thomas Jefferson and slavery (ditto), or even Notes on the State of Virginia (which does mention white supremacy), the editor added Jefferson to the American white supremacist category, was reverted (months ago), then came back a few weeks ago and tried it again three times in a day [539] [540] [541]. Doing the hard work of adding neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced content about the white supremacist viewpoint to the Jefferson articles would be using sources out in the world to improve the Jefferson articles at Wikipedia; that would be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. However, trying to add Jefferson to the Wikipedia white supremacist category before the article content supports that categorization suggests the editor may be trying to use the encyclopedia to fix the world; that would be WP:NOTHERE. I hope the editor can make the adjustments the community is looking for. Levivich (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC) I am really not an admin. Nor do I particularly want the mop. But thanks for the vote of confidence. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Bka123456987

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

---

By new account Bka123456987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At User talk:Bka123456987/sandbox: "If you are going to take down the edit, then be prepared for legal battle." Editor's unsourced changes to the ideology of the Democratic Party of the United States at Politics of the United States have been reverted several times. General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked.--v/r - TP 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• good block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• good sysop. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Raja Atizaz Ahmad Kiyani

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

---

Raja Atizaz Ahmad Kiyani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to ignore the incivility shown by this user but he is persistently leaving harassing and abusive messages on my talk page. Earlier today, I declined a draft created by this user on the grounds of sourcing. I left comment explaining the reason behind my rejection. In response to that he left this message on my talkpage. Google translate couldn't give anything as language is unknown but the words "Bitch", "Harami" and "Baap" are some derogatory words in English and Urdu language of Pakistan from where this user belongs (as per their user page). I responded here as I understood that he is frustrated over my rejection of draft. In response to that he responded here again impolitely. I explained guidelines and policies to him and requested not to leave messages on my talk page here. Now, he is saying that he has freedom of speech, he is available on all social media, blah, blah. He is threatening me, asking my name, asking me to meet personally. He confirms that my declining of draft does not matter anymore. Please look into this. Any help with this user will be appreciated. Hitro talk 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Midwestman1986 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

• Midwestman1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Midwestman1986 has only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks; now he's trying to take it over. He's been changing lead paragraphs on Kansas City TV station articles the way he sees fit. [542] [543] [544] [545] [546] [547] [548] [549] [550] I change them back and he keeps changing them back, saying they unsourced when they don't have to be sourced. He also keeps misspelling on edits and edit summaries. Now he has the nerve to cuss me out. I heard of "biting the newcomers"; this newcomer is biting me! He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It might help if you could show us a diff of him "cussing you out". Alephb (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Two edit summaries: [551] [552] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I started a section on the article's Talk page after reviewing each of your edits, you might want to discuss it there rather than here (since both of you were edit warring). Schazjmd (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I specifically left a reference showing the location of the TV station being in Fairway, Kansas. Yet he insists on leaving the location as Kansas City Missouri which was before 2005. it said it broadcasted to Kansas City Missouri and Kansas City kansas. I replaced that with Kansas City metropolitan area. Kansas City Kansas is smaller than cities like Overland Park, Kansas which also gets broadcasted by the news station too so I added Kansas City metropolitan area. Here is the link for its location in fairway, Kansas and phone number is (913) which is a Kansas area code. Most of this page is unsourced so I removed a few sentences and added sourced information. By all means I wouldn’t remove stuff if it was sourced. He keeps removing sourced information I added and just did it again. And now the location still says Kansas City Missouri, which is not correct At all.[553] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kansas City MO is KCTV's city of license; its studios were located there before moving across the state line in 1983. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would debate the notion that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Troublesome and most likely unaware of our policies and guidelines but I am assuming good faith at this stage. The user should be made aware of both our edit war and personal attack policies. In any case, this is more of a content dispute. IWI (chat) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Now Midwestman1986 is ranting on his talk page, misspelling "Missouri" and making a certain Adam Sandler quote. [554] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC

No, you literally just logged out and put that message on my page, stop being a little liar and trying to frame me. I put on the KCTV page that it is located in fairway Kansas and liscensed by Kansas City , Missouri. I’m going to change it back in a day or so and you better leave it. Saying it’s location is in Kansas City Missouri is a lie. Why do you keep putting Kansas City, Kansas? It also serves Overland Park, Kansas, which has more people than Kansas City, Kansas. You’re clearly just doing what you want. Kansas City metropolitan area is much more accurate.

It wasn't me; I'm still logged in. I really thought you did it, and I'm sorry. As for KCTV, it's in Kansas City MO because it's their FCC-assigned city of license (not Fairway, not Overland Park). Their studios are in Fairway. Cities of license and studio locations are different. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure you didn’t do it... anyways I get that it’s liscensed in Kansas City, Missouri but that doesn’t change the location. That’s why I wrote” it is located in fairway, Kansas and liscnesed by Kansas City, Missouri. Their front office is in Fairway, Kansas, their phone number is a Kansas phone number, and their studios are in Kansas. They are in fairway Kansas and broadcast to the Kansas City metropolitan area. And they are liscnesed by Kansas City Mo. it’s that Simple I’m changing the location to fairway Kansas tommorow. It’s where it is, it’s what their phone number is and it’s where their office is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I warned you six days before that you're in the wrong place. This goes on 3RR if it had gotten out of control, not here, and all I'm seeing is you templating and being hostile to an editor because they don't know how WP:TVS edits articles and infoboxes, and not explaining anything. Once again, read the warnings listed above the edit box about what is appropriate to post on ANI. This certainly doesn't meet that. Learn to use user talk pages before wandering into WP: space.

Midwestman1986, we usually only list the major cities served that are part of a metro area's official name in the infobox from an official source, rather than suburbs that may be unfamiliar to a reader just coming in. I know there are definitely cases where...let's say Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, or Bloomington, Minnesota both have considerable populations in the Twin Cities. But we only usually list Minneapolis and St. Paul because a basic reader will know those are definitely the major cities in the Twin Cities. Here, yes, Overland Park is about a quarter larger in population than KCK, but it's mainly a suburb only known within the Kansas City area. People are more familiar with KCK and KCMO than they are Overland Park, which isn't really written about beyond the basic suburban sense as a suburb of the Kansas Cities. I know it's definitely a very annoying Rodney Dangerfield/"no respect" issue for Overland Park or Fairway, but in these articles, we can't overload an infobox with all of the largest cities a station serves or their studio location (which is best left in the lede, or top paragraph of the article), we have to list what's officially named to define a metro area, with the only leeway otherwise given for a city of license like KMCI's Lawrence, Kansas. I hope this explains a bit why the infoboxes and ledes are written the way they are, and I apologize if your introduction to editing wasn't positive. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And I've restored this from blanking, @Mvcg66b3r:. You don't get to blank a discussion just because others disagree with you. You brought the report, you invite just as much scrutiny for your actions as who you're reporting. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, the allegations of logging out to frame this IP address are concerning but realistic, Mvcg66b3r. IWI (chat) 09:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against Mvcg66b3r here with checkuser request. IWI (chat) 09:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midwestman1986. More socks likely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• User:Midwestman1986 is now indef blocked by Berean Hunter per the above SPI, so I suggest that this thread can be closed. If people want to submit further evidence they can add it to the SPI. Due to the situation, Midwestman1986 can't continue to discuss here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate it when my good faith assumptions are undone by an extremely large sockfarm (I'm quite unhappy with MWM, and that's putting it lightly). Thanks, Berean for getting to the bottom of this. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Gross antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. 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 think that this edit by an IP is worthy of an immediate block, and of edit suppression. RolandR (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) The edit isn't showing up. Might have been deleted. DarkKnight2149 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Coordinated editing attack on University of Management and Technology (United States)

can an admin here take a look at what i suspect is a coordinated editing attack on this page? There are a bunch of editors who i suspect are sockpuppets and have for decades reverted totally legit edits that I and other editors have made on the article. If this is not the proper place to file this request then please let me know; as i understand there is a sockpuppet investigation place where it could also go under. My mistake in advance if there is anything wrong with this notice as this is the first time i have requested help here. Flickotown (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flickotown: No, p Per WP:UNIGUIDE, I have removed the spamcruft from that page; please do they should not restore it. If you they think there is any benefit to the encyclopaedia in using the page as a brochure for that institution, you they should take your their concerns to the talk page and discuss elements for inclusion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think Flickotown is using it as a brochure - see here. It's Bikerun and Mgtguru.

University of Management and Technology (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is worth a look.

These are two accounts that are nearly a decade old - so it looks less like sockpuppetry, perhaps a bit of tag team at worst. But these accounts are restoring a policy incompliant version of the page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Apologies, I misread the diffs, and you are of course right. Many apologies to Flickotown, and I havce struckedn / adjusted my previous remarks and would now simply note that they should now be read as being directed at users Mgtguru and Bikerun, whom I agree are almost cerainly not socks...just faculty members / alumni. ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:, what do you think? ——SerialNumber54129 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:SPI if have evidence, pure vandal go WP:AIV. urgent case that not suitable for both go here.

BTW, I are not sure your username is too similar to Fenix down or not. Matthew hk (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not similar at all. Fish+Karate 11:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• User:Serial Number 54129, I think a real CU should look at this, following an SPI for the two, with the new account User:Superbedit thrown in as well--with a fairly close examination of behavioral evidence (I'm talking about idiosyncrasies and things like that). FWIW I endorse CU for this future case. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• The following accounts are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged:
  • Superbedit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mgtguru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Bikerun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • PolishedRaven (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NLT

Can someone handle? Thanks, Neutrality^talk 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone handled ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Neutrality^talk 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Good block. The threat was unambiguous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway I think if they were to have pursued, they should figure out what is being sued for. Slander is spoken, and we're a textual based interaction. Canterbury Tail talk 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I get the impression they don't actually work for the NRA and are just trying to keep their edit from being reverted by claiming nonexistent authority. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Always amuses me though when people complain on here that they'll sue for slander. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, text to speech apps are commonplace these days, and can convert libel to slander easily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism 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.

---

The down IP Address make in a short time five vandalism edits with no background just to disturb. Can this be stopped.

• IP Adress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.156.48.34

• Article:

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

--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Already semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I happened to see this reach CAT:CSD. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you !--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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